Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
1. Juries Act 1974.
2. Prices Act 1974.
3. Lord Chancellor (Tenure of Office and Discharge of Ecclesiastical Functions) Act 1974.
4. Clerical, Medical and General Life Assurance Act 1974.
5. Crude Oil Terminals (Humber) Act 1974.
6. Morpeth Common Act 1974.
7. University of Bristol Act 1974.

And to the following Measures, passed under the provision of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919:
Synodical Government (Amendment) Measure 1974.
Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction (Amendment) Measure 1974.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

MERSEYSIDE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL

Order for consideration read.

To be considered tomorrow.

BRITISH AIRPORTS AUTHORITY (LONGFORD RIVER) BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Unemployed Persons

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what were the numbers wholly unemployed in June 1974; and what further steps he is taking to reduce the numbers wholly unemployed.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Fraser): On 10th June 1974, 515,773 people were unemployed in Great Britain. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated his intention to introduce a second Budget to make such further adjustments as are necessary to keep up the level of employment.

Mr. Roberts: Is my hon. Friend aware that we welcome the decision by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take action, but will he look particularly at problems of areas such as Cannock Chase district which are close to large conurbations and which in addition to having a high level of unemployment have a hidden level of unemployment in the increasing proportion of the population which has to travel to and from the conurbation to find work?

Mr. Fraser: We take these matters into account. It is true that Cannock has a higher rate of unemployment than elsewhere, although if we take away miners who are unemployed, many of whom are disabled, we find that the rate in Cannock is as low as 2·7 per cent. The needs of people in that situation are taken into account in the training programme.

Mr. Redmond: Does the hon. Gentleman still think that the unemployment figures are accurate? If so, how does he justify them in view of the shortages of labour which are being experienced in areas of unemployment above the national average?

Mr. Fraser: I cannot say that the figures are absolutely accurate because some people are unemployed and do not register as such. There are some vacancies which are not notified to my Department. The figures I gave are the best available in the circumstances.

Social Contract

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if, in view of the statements by Mr. Buckton given in evidence at the Railways Staffs National Tribunal hearing concerning his union's 16 per cent. pay claim on 25th June, he remains satisfied with the operation of a voluntary social compact.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): Mr. Buckton has made it clear that the TUC General Council's report on "Collective Bargaining and the Social Contract" issued on 26th June has his full support. I have talked with him on the subject and I am sure that some of the views he quite naturally expressed at the tribunal have been considerably misinterpreted.

Mr. Tebbit: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we greet his statement with considerable relief? Is he also aware that we congratulate him on the success of his policy in so far as the miners in their pay claim have not named a sum which could be called substantial? Will he say whether the social compact can stand many awards of the sort envisaged at Shell of 25 per cent. and more?

Mr. Foot: To deal with the last point first, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's figure. In any case, so far as I understand the situation no settlement has been reached there. I think we should wait to see what the situation is. As for the relief expressed by the hon. Gentleman at the beginning of his supplementary question, I am not sure whether the nation can rejoice as his relief, but if he understands the situation better the whole country will be glad to hear it.

Equal Pay

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he intends to take to ensure full implementation of the Equal Pay Act 1970 by the appointed day.

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the progress towards equal pay: and what action he is taking to ensure that the provisions of the Equal Pay Act are carried out.

Mr. Foot: My information suggests that a good deal of progress is being made but that there are some areas where it is certainly not satisfactory. I have had talks with the TUC on this subject and I am considering what more can be done to bring to the attention of employers, women and their trade unions the need to press forward in good time to achieve full compliance with the Act when it comes into operation on 29th December 1975. Employers should realise that if they have not yet done anything about equal pay they are leaving it very late and they run the risk of breaking the law.
Among the actions I am considering is a further publicity effort and the possible use of my power, from the end of this year, to refer collective agreements to the Industrial Arbitration Board for advice.

Mr. Hamilton: I recognise the fact of the timetable and other difficulties experienced by the Government, but will my right hon. Friend accept that this particular claim probably is the oldest wage claim in the history of the trade union movement and that nothing must be allowed to stand in the way of its implementation by December 1975? Will he give an assurance that he will make it abundantly clear to the recalcitrant employers, and in some cases trade unions, that the full rigours of the 1970 enforcement provisions will be applied retrospectively as provided in that legislation?

Mr. Foot: If my hon. Friend looks at the speech by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on this subject a few weeks ago, he will see that he spoke in the strongest terms on the matter and, indeed, in much the same terms as my hon. Friend has now used. The Department is greatly strengthening the resources that are applied to the work of trying to ensure that we proceed to prepare for implementation of the Act, we have strengthened the resources of investigation and report dealing with this matter and we are considering what further steps we can take in the form of publicity and the rest to deal with it. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we must make absolutely sure that this old wage claim is met.

Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I do not share his complacency when he says that good progress has been made? Is he aware that full-time manual women workers get only 62 per cent. of the male wage and that full-time non-manual women workers get only 54 per cent. of the male wage? Is not that a poor position when we are only 18 months away from full implementation of the Equal Pay Act?
When my right hon. Friend carries out the publicity campaign, will he do so with more precision and firmness than did his predecessor? If he is not successful, will he seek to lay a statutory instrument before the House to see that there is 90 per cent. equal pay by the end of this year, for which the Act provides?

Mr. Foot: The Act provided that a statutory instrument could be laid to achieve the result desired by both my hon. Friend and the Government, but the power to use a statutory instrument was exhausted at the end of last year and because it was not used by the previous Government it is not available to us under the terms of the Act.
Therefore, when considering whether to seek fresh legislative power we found that we would have to have completely new legislation and that we could not take action by statutory instrument. In view of the fact that the Act as a whole comes into operation at the end of next year, we did not think that the best way to go about it was to have fresh legislation now.
I assure my hon. Friend that there is no complacency about this matter. I said in my earlier remarks that we had progressed better in some areas and in some respects than in others, but we will do everything in our power to ensure both that the Act is fully carried out and that employers understand well in advance that equal pay will be the law of the land by December 1975.

Arms Industry Workers(Redeployment)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will speedily draw up and publish plans for redeployment of any workers who may be affected by reduction in arms spending, including the policies successfully adopted in 1945 to transfer workers from

war work to peaceful industrial employment.

Mrs. Wise: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will draw up and publish plans for redeployment of any workers who may be affected by a reduction in defence spending and/or armaments production for export, to prevent unemployment.

Mr. John Fraser: My Department is studying the employment implications of a revision of the defence programme including the need for the redeployment of workers. This work cannot be finalised until the defence review is completed in the autumn.

Mr. Allaun: I am grateful for that reply. Will my hon. Friend consider following the experience of the American Government which required major arms firms to submit plans for diversification of their products if necessary? Will he plan to ensure that where arms production is cut it will be replaced in the same locality by alternative work of greater commercial value to the country?

Mr. Fraser: I take note of my hon. Friend's remarks. It is too early to be able to give specific instances of how unemployment, if it arose from arms reduction, would take place, but I am grateful for my hon. Friend's suggestions.

Sir P. Bryan: Can the hon. Gentleman gauge the scale of unemployment directly attributable to loss of orders due to the Government's attitude to some of our regular arms customers, and more especially the potential loss of custom from those who might have dealt with us but who now see that Britain cannot honour her contracts?

Mr. Fraser: I think I explained on the last occasion when I answered Questions that I was not aware of any unemployment which arose as a decision of the Government. The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is purely hypothetical.

Mrs. Wise: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side would welcome a reduction in the export of armaments as we do not understand the logic of a policy which arms people in all the different parts of the world without there


being any guarantee about what will ultimately happen to those arms? Does he agree that any examination of the arms industry should take this into account? Will he ensure that workers in the armaments industry are fully reassured that any changes in policy will not be at their expense, that they will be fully consulted and that their expertise will be utilised in deciding on suitable redeployment?

Mr. Fraser: With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, matters of policy relating to the sale of arms are not matters for my Department. No doubt my hon. Friend's remarks in that respect will be noted. With reference to the second part of her supplementary question, it is too early to say, on the current defence review, what kind of cuts may take place but I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be consultation between Departments, and I am sure that the views of workers and their representatives about problems of redeployment will be taken into account.

Mr. Prior: Will the hon. Gentleman have a word with the Prime Minister and persuade him to go to dockyard constituencies and ensure that this time, instead of making speeches about expansion of the Royal Navy, he says what the Labour Party is really up to?

Mr. Fraser: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity later to put a question to my right hon Friend the Prime Minister, if he wishes. As, however, we have in this country—despite the level of the unemployment figures—a considerable shortage of skilled labour and considerable civil objectives to fulfil I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will welcome the proposals which ultimately will be made by the Government on defence reduction.

Industrial Relations Act

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he now expects to secure the repeal of the Industrial Relations Act before the end of July 1974.

Mr. Foot: I certainly hope so.

Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Industrial Relations Act has been one of the longest running

farces in parliamentary history? Does he further agree that millions of pounds have been spent on this lavish production, that hundreds of people have been engaged in chasing one another from confrontation to confrontation and that finally the ageing comic hero, like Falstaff, in the guise of the Leader of the Opposition has abandoned the stage saying that he never meant it after all?

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend makes the farce so attractive that I am almost sorry it is going to end.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his confidence that the Act will be repealed by the end of July conflicts with his weekend statement that the opposition of the Liberal Party and Conservative Party together has made government virtually impossible and has made it inevitable that there should be an early General Election? Will the right hon. Gentleman state exactly what things in his Department have been made impossible by the activities of the Opposition?

Mr. Foot: One of the things made impossible was the restoration to the trade unions of the £10 million which the previous Government took from them. What I was referring to in my weekend remarks was the prospective abolition of the Pay Board. I hope that we shall have Liberal support in carrying through that operation. Perhaps the Liberals have changed their minds about this, as they did about the Industrial Relations Act.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that there will still be serious misgivings about the loss of the £10 million by the trade union movement, that this involves losses for pension funds, widows and educational trusts and that the Opposition seem intent on withholding this money? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that this question will not be forgotten and that it will be resurrected at a later date?

Mr. Foot: I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's feelings on this matter. I certainly hope that we will be able to deal with this as soon as we have an assured majority for justice in this House of Commons.

Mr. Peyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how interesting we found his remarks just now that the £10 million


repayment to the trade union movement was a cardinal point and one on which he presumably wishes to fight? Is he also aware that when he produces his new Bill, of which he is making such a cardinal feature, we will be very interested to hear his own personal explanation of it instead of the kind of general sermon which he preached on Second Reading?

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman will have to possess his soul, if that is what it is, in patience until tomorrow and Thursday, when we shall discuss these matters. As for the first part of his supplementary question about the £10 million, the protestation of the right hon. Gentleman and others of his right hon. and hon. Friends was that they never wanted to see the trade unions lose the money. Therefore, all that we were attempting to do was to carry out their good intentions, if their intentions were good.

Mr. Hayhoe: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that substantial sections of the 1971 Act are being reenacted by the legislation at present before Parliament and that the important questions before this House at the moment are the amendments needed to that legislation during the Report stage to make it broadly acceptable to the country?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the Bill now before the House is incorrect, but we shall have a chance to debate that. The only substantial part of the 1971 Act which reappears in our Bill is that dealing with unfair dismissals, and that part was taken from the Bill of 1970 of the previous Government.

Vacancies

Mr. Ralph Howell: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the actual number of job vacancies in the United Kingdom.

Mr. John Fraser: At 5th June 1974 my Department knew of 340,173 job vacancies notified to employment offices in the United Kingdom and 113,765 job vacancies which had been notified to careers offices. I have no reliable information on the number of vacancies outstanding which had not been notified.

Mr. Howell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the figures which he has just given are totally inaccurate and unreliable since they do not indicate the number of job vacancies that exist in the United Kingdom? His Department knows only of between 20 and 25 per cent. of vacancies whereas there are at present between 1½ million and 2 million vacancies, with probably 100,000 or fewer people looking for jobs. Is not this one of the main causes of the economic predicament in which we find ourselves? Will the hon. Gentleman take measures to save the taxpayer's money in printing figures which are not only useless but also dangerous?

Mr. Fraser: I find that an extraordinary contribution. The figures which I gave are figures of vacancies notified to the Department. Obviously I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the figures for vacancies which are not notified to the Department. However, we recently carried out a study of 34 companies. It showed that 32 per cent. of vacancies had been notified to the Department. But that is too small a segment to give an overall picture. There are vacancies outside those notified to employment offices.
The number of people seeking work is very much higher than the 100,000 figure referred to by the hon. Gentleman. Some people find jobs without going through the employment offices. But the hon. Gentleman's conclusions are quite extraordinary.

Mr. Prior: Would not it be in the national interest to have a proper review of the unemployment figures and their accuracy? Is not that a matter which we could take out of the realm of party politics and on which a proper review could be done which might give a very different picture of the total number of people unemployed?

Mr. Fraser: I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman says. Other countries have tried. I give one example. Canada recently conducted a survey to measure the total of outstanding vacancies and also to look at unemployment apart from those registered. It was an expensive operation both in money and in employers' time. It is not considered that such a survey to get more accurate figures than the ones I have given would be justified.

Redundancy Protection

Mr. George Gardiner: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will consider taking steps to extend the protection available to workers faced with redundancy.

Mr. John Fraser: My right hon. Friend will be publishing a consultative document on an Employment Protection Bill. This will include proposals on the protection available to workers who are made redundant.

Mr. Gardiner: Before that, as a first step, will the hon. Gentleman consider lifting his blocking reserve on the EEC directive on redundancy in order that workers throughout Western Europe may benefit from its provisions?

Mr. Fraser: Question No. 13 on the Order Paper deals with that subject. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to answer it when we reach it.

Mr. Newens: Does my hon. Friend intend to give any consideration to the plight of workers employed by firms which go bankrupt, who at present get no proper cover? Will he undertake to ensure that consideration is given to this problem in any future action that is taken to provide proper redundancy payments?

Mr. Fraser: Yes. I have recently written to my hon. Friend, and I can confirm that consideration will be given to that proposal.

Mr. Hayhoe: Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that the consultative document to which he has referred will be published before we rise for the Summer Recess?

Mr. Fraser: No, I cannot give that assurance. I can only say that it will be published later this year.

Nurses and Teachers

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many nurses and teachers have obtained employment through his Department in the last six months.

Mr. John Fraser: The figures are 2,813 and 50 respectively.

Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware that both nurses and teachers have been caused a great deal of anger and annoyance

over the past three years and that the present demonstrations that they are making are the result of this massive frustration? Will he do all in his power to ease their annoyance and frustration so that more teachers and nurses can be recruited to do the admirable work which our society needs?

Mr. Fraser: My hon. Friend's supplementary question does not arise strictly out of his Question. The House will recognise, however, that my right hon. Friend has set up two general reviews—one into teachers' pay and the other into nurses' pay. I do not know that we have had a Government in recent memory who have taken such urgent and quick action over the problems of these two professions.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Does not my hon. Friend feel that, instead of nurses and teachers obtaining employment, they will leave their employment if the Government insist on implementing the deplorable Pay Board report and refusing to give local weighting to nurses and teachers working in places like Watford, where 50 yards away in the town hall people get that local allowance? Is the Government's motto to be "The Pay Board, right or wrong"?

Mr. Fraser: In answering questions on this matter last week my right hon. Friend did not give any impression that negotiators were rigidly constrained by the Pay Board report and he said that as soon as possible they would not be rigidly constrained by a statutory incomes policy. The report affords valuable guidance that there is evidence of the higher cost of living in London. If payments were made over and above these costs it would mean a transfer of resources from other parts of the country to the capital.

EEC Social Fund Grants

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will list those projects which benefited from the grants received by the United Kingdom under the EEC Social Fund in 1973; and if he will make a statement regarding actual and potential grants in 1974.

Mr. John Fraser: The following schemes in Great Britain received financial assistance from the European Social Fund in 1973: training of unemployed


workers in the assisted areas; other Government expenditure on training; transfer of workers from and within the assisted areas; training and resettlement of workers leaving agriculture; training of workers in or leaving textiles; training of disabled persons; industrial rehabilitation of disabled persons. Similar schemes in Northern Ireland also received assistance from the fund.
Applications in respect of these and other schemes of a smaller scale in the field of training and rehabilitation have been submitted for 1974 but as yet no decisions have been made on awards. Further applications may be submitted during the course of the year.

Mr. Blaker: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the sum which the United Kingdom received from the fund in 1973 amounted to £24 million? Is it not also a fact that applications which have been made in respect of this year fall below that figure, despite the fact that the size of the fund for the Community as a whole has been increased? Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Secretary of State has not given any directive that we should go slow in our applications to the fund because of any views that he may hold about the EEC?

Mr. Fraser: The figure for awards during 1973 was £19·83 million. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a full list of applications for 1974 because changes were recently made in decisions about schemes qualifying for help for migrants and disabled people. This should extend the area of applications which can be made to the Commission for help from the fund. For instance, I hope that it would include applications for assistance towards the expenses of the Race Relations Board, our race relations advisers, the Community Relations Commission and certain rehabilitation schemes for the disabled.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the benefits from the social and regional funds of the EEC are minimal compared with the huge adverse effect of the common agricultural policy with all its acute social effects as well?

Mr. Fraser: Perhaps I may give a mathematical answer. The amount that we receive from the European Social

Fund is very small compared with the payments which are made to the common agricultural fund.

Mr. George Lawson: Does my hon. Friend agree that these facilities and advantages are almost unknown among workers and trade unionists in Britain? Will he do his utmost to bring to their notice the many advantages that could accrue to them if they made use of the facilities available to them?

Mr. Fraser: The payments which come from the European Social Fund are repayments of amounts expended by this Government on schemes conducted in the United Kingdom. It would be claiming too much to say that the European Social Fund made a significant difference to the facilities that we provide in this country. However, it provides a useful contribution in meeting half the costs of the schemes that we undertake.

Redundancy (EEC Directive)

Mr. Redmond: asked the Secretary of State for Employment why a reserve was placed on the EEC directive on redundancy.

Mr. John Fraser: I explained at the meeting of the Council of Ministers on 10th June that the Government were undertaking a fundamental review of industrial relations legislation. In the light of this the Council decided to postpone discussion of the draft directive until its next meeting.

Mr. Redmond: In the light of that reply and the reply on the previous Question, particularly the supplementary question by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Lawson), is it not obvious that the Government intend to smother all the positive aspects of the Common Market and to keep them from the people of this country?

Mr. Fraser: That suggestion is quite ludicrous. I explained to the Council of Ministers, and I do not apologise for this, that there were certain proposals which I thought it better to discuss with people in this country—the trade unions and employers—before coming to any decision at Luxembourg. That was no part of any renegotiation stance. It was the right attitude to adopt: to talk about


these matters here first and later to make decisions at Luxembourg.

West Midlands

Mr. Carter: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the employment prospects for the West Midlands Region.

Mr. John Fraser: Currently there is a strong demand for labour in the region and it is the Government's policy to do all they can to maintain employment at a high level.

Mr. Carter: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that in a region where one-quarter of the industrial work force is employed in the car industry the announcement by British Leyland that it is encountering difficulties and has doubts about the future has met with disquiet? May I ask, therefore, what his Department and the Secretary of State may be urging upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer in terms of economic changes that may remove the causes of those doubts?

Mr. Fraser: I cannot anticipate what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer may say. I hope it is reassuring to my hon. Friend that unemployment in the West Midlands is 1·9 per cent., which is less than in Great Britain as a whole. I understand his concern about job prospects at British Leyland. However, in the West Midlands there is a particularly strong demand for skilled engineering workers, and expansion plans already begun for Rover, Triumph and Jaguar at Birmingham, Coventry and Solihull are expected to continue. I hope that my hon. Friend will find this information reassuring.

Mr. Tugendhat: How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile his optimistic statement with the collapse in consumer spending revealed in the first part of the year and with the dismal state of hire-purchase figures? Surely these are much more revealing than his hon. Friend's question and his rather sanguine reply.

Mr. Fraser: I do not think I was making either optimistic or pessimistic forecasts. I was simply giving the House the facts.

Mr. Ashley: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the North Staffordshire area of the West Midlands Region there will be a catastrophic increase in unemployment if the Shelton steelworks are allowed to close? While recognising the demarcation problems between Ministers, may I ask whether my hon. Friend will undertake to consult the Secretary of State for Industry about the Shelton steelworks as unemployment would be a grave problem for North Staffordshire if the works were allowed to close?

Mr. Fraser: There are always consultions between the Department responsible for the steel industry and my Department about the consequences of redundancies. I have seen some of the effects of this problem. Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has announced arrangements for consultation with Members of Parliament and trade unionists about the effects of closures. We shall certainly do all we can to assist.

Mr. Eyre: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable apprehension about the future in the Birmingham and West Midlands area where it is felt that already the area is too dependent on the motor car industry, where a substantial fall in the demand for manufactured goods is foreseen, where there is a shortage of liquidity on the part of manufacturers, made worse by Government measures, and where it is felt that the situation would be made much worse if the Government adopted a harder line in directing industrial development out of the West Midlands? Therefore, will he confirm that there is no question whatever of the Government adopting any policy to move any future industrial development out of the West Midlands?

Mr. Fraser: There is a contradiction in what the hon. Gentleman has said. The West Midlands area is very much reliant upon engineering. Diversification is one of the objects of Government policy. Although it is not a matter for my Department, I know of no immediate proposals for the moving out of industry. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Department of Industry is considering an application from the British Leyland Motor Corporation for an industrial development certificate.

Labour Costs (Survey)

Mr. David Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide, free of charge, expert assistance to those employers who have been required to furnish information in a questionnaire entitled Survey of Labour Costs, 1973.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): Employers who encounter any difficulties in completing such statistical returns are invited in the covering letter which accompanies the questionnaire, to seek help from my Department.

Mr. Mitchell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the high cost to small businesses of assembling all the information which is requested in the questionnaire? Is he aware that much of the information is already given to the Treasury? Is he further aware that the questionnaire contains no fewer than 72 questions? It is wholly unreasonable for a firm to have to collect all the information. I am aware that this practice has been going on for a long time, but may I ask the hon. Gentleman to take steps to ensure that in future these quesionnaires are severely limited to the minimum possible requirements?

Mr. Booth: This survey is being conducted at the request of the European Economic Community. All the information which is being collected is required by the Community. Therefore, it may be in the hands of this House and the people of this country to decide whether this cost will continue to be borne by employers.

Mrs. Knight: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the bulk of the information demanded is not about the EEC. Is he also aware that the collecting and collating of information can be a tremendous burden on small firms which do not have large clerical staffs? Will he try to cut down the necessity for some of these questions?

Mr. Booth: I assure the hon. Lady that I am not anxious to heap unnecessary work upon any firms. I appreciate that difficulties may be created in providing the information. That is why my Department, on request, gives advice through specialist staff by explanation and clarifi

cation on how to complete the questionnaires. However, we cannot send staff to the firms to do the work for them.

Social Contract

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what progress he has made in establishing the social contract.

Mr. Pardoe: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the progress of the social compact between the Government and the trade unions.

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the progress made regarding the social compact between the Government and the Trades Union Congress.

Mr. Foot: Some good progress has been made. Much the most important development in this field has been the publication of the TUC General Council's report on "Collective Bargaining and the Social Contract", published on 26th June, which I believe provides a constructive framework for pay negotiations after the compulsory pay controls are abolished.

Mr. McCrindle: Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel on reflection, however, that the broadcast he made during the weekend about the social contract was unforgivable and unjustifiably complacent? Does he accept that even those of us who wish him success in the venture upon which he has embarked are nevertheless fearful of the effects of a failure? In view of the catastrophic inflationary effects if he does not succeed in achieving the social contract, will the right hon. Gentleman say what contingency plans he and the Government have in mind?

Mr. Foot: No one who heard what I said on Sunday could have described it as complacent. My first sentence was that no one in his senses could doubt the seriousness of the situation that the Government had to face. I said that right at the beginning. What I also said was that the situation was not worse today than it was at the end of February and the beginning of March. Indeed, in many respects it is much better—the whole House will agree about that—because


at that time we were involved in an industrial smash-up which was the worst since the 1920s or the 1930s. Of course, the situation has improved.
As for the dangerous inflationary situation no one in the Government is denying the dangers, but those dangers were there when we took office. What we have been doing is to take steps to prepare to curb that situation, and the social contract is one of the essential measures for achieving that objective.

Mr. Pardoe: Does the Secretary of State realise that there are some hon. Members, on the Opposition side of the House at least, who will wish the social contract success and wish him well in his task while maintaining a certain scepticism about the likelihood of success? Does he accept that no one in this country, either wage earner or salary earner, can expect more than compensation for the increase in the cost of living over the next 12 months at least? Does he really believe that the social contract will be sufficiently binding to ensure that? What teeth will he put into it to ensure that it will work?

Mr. Foot: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's sceptical enthusiasm, if that was what it was, or enthusiastic scepticism. I am not quite sure which way round we should have it. But we cannot guarantee that it will be successful. We believe, however, that the statutory system was an almighty failure. Therefore, we are setting out on a different system. We shall discuss the new system in the House next week. The Pay Board order is being laid today. Assuming that the Prices Bill receives Royal Assent today, the order will be laid and we shall discuss the matter next week. This refers to the social contract. The abolition of statutory controls is an essential part of the social contract.
The trade unions would certainly not have been prepared to enter into any such arrangements and understandings if it had not been that we were carrying out our pledge in that respect as in many others. Therefore, that is part of the social contract too. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's support when we come to that. As for putting teeth into it, if by that the hon. Gentleman means restoring compulsory controls, we have no intention of doing that.

Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the statement of policy issued by the TUC is very good reading? Does he support the conclusion that priorities should be given to negotiating agreements which would have beneficial effects upon efficiency, reform the pay structure and improve job security to complement the action that has been taken by Mr. Len Murray, the General Secretary, and the TUC General Council in delivering their side of the contract?

Mr. Foot: I certainly agree with my lion. Friend. The whole country owes a debt to Mr. Len Murray for the way in which he has spoken on these matters both at trade union conferences and elsewhere, and I hope that we shall have support from it. Of course, my hon. Friend is quite right to draw the attention of the House to that special feature in the statement of the TUC. The matter raised in the previous question by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) was already referred to in that document. I invite the House to read the whole document and to study it in detail.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how the activities of National Health Service employees at Charing Cross Hospital fit in with the social contract?

Mr. Foot: The argument that they were having was not concerned with pay questions or questions directly concerned with the social contract. That matter, therefore, does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF

Mr. Kinnock: asked the Prime Minister what staff changes he has made to the CPRS since his administration took office.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): None, Sir. Three members of the CPRS have left voluntarily and there have been three new appointments.

Mr. Kinnock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those three voluntary leavers have all left the "think tank" for the rather muddier waters of the Conservative Central Office? Is he aware that the first of them, Mr. Brian Reading, was the man who coined the phrase "at a


stroke" and that the second of them, Mr. William Waldegrave, was speech-writer to the Leader of the Opposition during the recent General Election? Bearing this tradition in mind, should not my right hon. Friend release Mr. Adam Ridley, who is the latest leaver, and not merely release him but give him a car to take him over to Conservative Central Office, where he can join his erstwhile colleagues in giving further assistance to the Leader of the Opposition, who obviously needs it?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The first two cases are not contained within the Question, which relates to the period since the present administration took office. Mr. Reading, I understand, was in the CPRS but he left to go to journalism, I think. The second gentleman mentioned by my hon. Friend left the CPRS before the change of government. The third is a Civil Servant who would normally have gone back to the Treasury. He is resigning from the Civil Service after a three-year secondment from the Treasury to the CPRS. What happens to him after that is not a matter for concern for those in charge of the CPRS. I understand that he will be having a suitable period of quarantine before going to any future employment.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is it true that the "think tank" is currently hawking its favours around Whitehall to try to find something to think about?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I have never heard anything further from the truth. This organisation, which has now served two Governments, is an extremely valuable new instrument in government. Last week for the first time—a new precedent—we published one of its reports, which was extremely valuable in provoking public discussion. It is an entirely non-political organisation which serves the Government by taking up particular questions either of current concern or of long-term concern to the nation which sometimes under successive Governments, have not been given the depth of study which they might have had.

Mr. Heath: As certain names have been mentioned in the House, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in all

three cases propriety has been observed to the full? Will he confirm that in the first place Mr. Reading had been at the Department of Economic Affairs before he came to the research department, was then recruited to the Cabinet Office, moved on promotion from the Cabinet Office to the CPRS and then left to join the Economist, which was a perfectly proper arrangement for him to undertake? Will the right hon. Gentle man confirm that the suggestion that the second person, Mr. Waldegrave, came from the Conservative research department into the CPRS is quite untrue? He followed a normal university career, both here and in America, and was recruited to the CPRS and left before the General Election. In the third case, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it was an entirely Civil Service career in the DEA, the Treasury and the CPRS and that there will now be a proper period, as with all civil servants, before he takes up other employment? I see no reason for criticism of either the CPRS or of any individual.

The Prime Minister: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not feel it entirely unrelated to the Question if I congratulate him in joining me at the age of 58 today. He usually does this two or three months afterwards. I can assure him that it is a very pleasant age at which to live.
On the questions that the right hon. Gentleman has put, I think I had already confirmed most of what he said in relation to Mr. Reading, whose help the right hon. Gentleman will no doubt never forget. What he said about Mr. Waldegrave is entirely true. He left before the General Election. Mr. Ridley is now following the normal quarantine provisions for the Civil Service.

Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his good wishes. He will have noticed from the morning and evening Press that age is not the only thing in which we appear to be joined together today.

The Prime Minister: Both the right hon. Gentleman and I have been misled for some years over these things before. I thought our majority this year would have been much higher.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT POLICY (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the public speech on industrial policy which he made at Huyton on 14th June.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 2nd July to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy).

Mr. Adley: In that speech the right hon. Gentleman referred to national priorities. Is not the reality of our industrial relations situation that a coal miner or a Shell oil refinery worker gets what he wants but that a radiographer, a teacher or a nurse must suffer? Is not the right hon. Gentleman's industrial policy now the survival of the strongest? Is that really what the Labour Party stands for in 1974, and is that perhaps why there are beginning to be defections from it?

The Prime Minister: I am glad that the hon. Member is able so succinctly to explain the whole philosophy of Conservative wages policy and Conservative industrial relations. They led, of course, to the three-day working week and the confrontation with the whole trade union movement. Most of the problems from which we suffer today—I shall come to the Stan-low and the Shell workers in a moment—relate to some of the extraordinary reports from and the rigid bureaucracy imposed by the Conservative Party upon the Pay Board, which will soon, of course, be consigned to the lumber room of history.
On the Shell deal, I understand that the situation is a little confused. It has been accepted in one area but not in another, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is keeping a close watch on the matter. We have noticed before under successive Governments, and stage 3 and the Pay Board are still supposed to be in force, that capital-intensive industries often start a situation by offering a generous wage increase because it does not affect profits or prices very much, and this may be what has happened in the case of Shell.

Mr, Arthur Lewis: As a means of saving the time of the House, and to enable hon. Members to put more important

Questions to my right hon. Friend, will he consider arranging always to circulate his speeches, if need be personally and to every Conservative Member, since the Opposition seem so anxious to read them? Such a course would save the time of the House.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think this is a familiar practice. As soon as speeches are made by the Prime Minister they are placed in the Library and Questions follow as quickly as possible there after. But I noticed the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts), in whose constituency I shall have the privilege of bidding him farewell when I am up there this week—[An HON. MEMBER: "You are the one who is going."]—because the hon. Member has a very short period to sit in this House. I should like to feel that in that short period he had shown great ingenuity in anticipating these matters by asking me to go there, because he will now know that I am going to his constituency on Friday night.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH HEADS OF GOVERNMENT

Mr. Rifkind: asked the Prime Minister what plans he has to seek a meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government.

The Prime Minister: My Commonwealth colleagues and I have already agreed to meet in Jamaica on 29th April 1975.

Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for that reply, but does he appreciate the urgent need for an early meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers in order that he may be made aware of the unanimous view of the Commonwealth that it would be disastrous for Britain to leave the EEC, not only for Britain—[Interruption]—but also for each and every member of the Commonwealth?

The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Member had a very close connection with Commonwealth matters some time ago, but he is not nearly so well in touch today. He will know that the New Zealanders and others have been severely prejudiced, as have all the countries covered by the sugar agreement, by the deplorable terms the Conservatives accepted in 1971.

Mr. Stonehouse: In anticipation of the meeting, has my right hon. Friend had any communication from the Prime Ministers of New Zealand and Australia about the recent French nuclear tests? Is it proposed that the Commonwealth should take any steps about the matter?

The Prime Minister: We are of course in touch with the Prime Ministers concerned. We have indicated to the House our view on the tests, regretting that they are taking place but at the same time welcoming that the President of France has said that this will be the last series.

Mr. Heath: Is not the time coming when the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary should tell the House clearly that the view of Commonwealth Governments is that it is wrong for the British Government to cause uncertainty by renegotiating the treaty terms? There are many other hon. Members who are fully in touch with Commonwealth Governments and Commonwealth leaders, and those Governments have expressed their view clearly to us. New Zealand is greatly worried by the delay that is now ensuing in the review of its own terms as reached under the Treaty of Accession as a result of the time taken by the Government. That is the situation in the Commonwealth. As for the sugar agreement, the Prime Minister knows that we are not getting the amount we should get under the agreement because of world prices, which have nothing whatever to do with European prices. It is time the Prime Minister told the House clearly that the Commonwealth does not want this country to leave Europe.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong on every point in his statement. It is certainly the case that while negotiations are going on, which will then lead to a decision by the British people—against the right hon. Gentleman's wishes—as to whether we should stay in the EEC, the Commonwealth countries are asking for a fairer share of the development aid, and we are being extremely active on their behalf. I have heard from no Commonwealth country the statement that we should not have engaged in renegotiations.
This is a matter for the British people. It is a matter on which the right hon. Gentleman must be ashamed of the terms he negotiated. He supports our engaging

in renegotiations, so why does he not say so? If he did not support renegotiations, he would not have tried to win votes by putting the word "renegotiation" in his party's manifesto at the last election. "Renegotiation" was his phrase. New Zealand wants to be free to sell goods to us because, especially at a time when the commodity situation—[Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) should regard his record in this matter with humility and sit in silence. New Zealand is well aware of the problem of selling its goods in a situation where commodity prices are falling. It wants to be able to keep the British market open, a situation which the right hon. Gentleman did nothing to defend.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's other question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] The right hon. Gentleman put a whole number of questions to me, and however unpalatable it may be to the Opposition I intend to answer them because he will have to defend his position in the General Election. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Sooner than the right hon. Gentleman wants. As for his question about Commonwealth sugar, of course there is a world shortage of sugar; of course the Commonwealth can sell it elsewhere. My Department negotiated the agreement in 1951 on the basis—[Interruption.] It was thrown away by the Conservatives. That agreement was based on a continuing secure market for the Commonwealth producer in this country, and that we are determined to achieve whether the Leader of the Opposition wants it or not.

Mr. Heath: Perhaps the Prime Minister should ask his Home Secretary and the 68 other Labour Members who voted for the agreement we made whether they are ashamed of the terms which were negotiated, because the Home Secretary knows, as did the former Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, Lord George-Brown, that they were better terms than the present Prime Minister could have got in negotiation. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to quote the whole of our manifesto be will be telling the House that we said that renegotiation is a continuous process, which goes on the whole time in the Community. Indeed, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has said that he will not change the treaty


or the Treaty of Accession. He is carrying on the process which every country which is a member of the Community does. It goes on the whole time.
This is a complete charade to cover the differences in the ranks behind the Prime Minister, but none the less a very dangerous charade. When the election comes, we shall certainly be able to face the electorate on this matter. As the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned a General Election, may I ask him whether it will be announced by himself or by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary of State for Employment?

The Prime Minister: It will not be announced this time by Lord Carrington or by a whole series of former Conservative Ministers, most of whom have now left the Conservative Front Bench. It will be announced in the proper manner and, in accordance with the precedents over many years, the right hon. Gentleman will be given prior notice.
As to the Common Market terms, all my right hon. and hon. Friends fought the last General Election on our manifesto, which set out the demand for renegotiations and for a final decision by the British people through the ballot box, which is rejected by the anti-democrats on the Opposition benches. We fought the election on that and we shall fight the next election on it as well.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With great respect, may I remind the House that we are not yet fighting the election.

Mr. Heath: Why was the Prime Minister so—

Mr. Tomlinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is Question Time a duologue, or can anybody join in?

Mr. Speaker: That is what I often wonder.

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Prime Minister why, in view of what he has just said, he persisted in saying that it was anti-democratic until July 1971, twice declaring that a referendum would be unconstitutional and entirely against the traditions of this country? In his own words, he said that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition both agreed that there should not be a referen

dum. Why, now that he has changed his mind to suit his own circumstances, does it suddenly become democratic?

The Prime Minister: Because we made it clear, as the right hon. Gentleman did, that we would not take the country into the Common Market without the wholehearted consent of the British people. The right hon. Gentleman rejected that pledge. We have made an honest woman of it.

Mr. Thorpe: May I intrude into this duel between two old contemporaries and revert to the question about the Commonwealth? Has the Prime Minister considered paying an urgent visit to Canada? Is he aware that he would find that the Parliamentary Liberal Party there has increased in number and that, therefore he would feel entirely at home?

The Prime Minister: I have always had the best possible relations with Mr. Trudeau. Perhaps in these pre-coalition days between the major and the minor Tories the right hon. Gentleman will point out to his right hon. Friend opposite—the Leader of the Opposition—that public opinion polls, on which he is today pinning a pathetic faith, are not always right.

Later—

Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I must protest on behalf of back benchers on both sides of the House about the virtual monopolisation of Prime Minister's Question Time by the exchange between the two Front Benches. May I point out to both right hon. Gentlemen concerned that if this is a foretaste of what we shall have at the next bloody election, the country is going to be bored to bloody tears.

Mr. Speaker: Order. No doubt both right hon. Gentlemen will give appropriate weight to what the hon. Gentleman has said.

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS BILL

Sir David Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker Before 10 o'clock last night I tabled two amendments to the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill, but they are not available in the Vote Office today


This is a serious matter, and I should be grateful for your help in regard to it.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave me notice of his point of order. I shall look into the matter he has raised. In the meantime, I can give him the assurance that, as he handed in his amendments in due time, I shall not treat them as starred amendments for the purposes of selection tomorrow.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Robert Sheldon): Further to that point of order. I must apologise to the House for the present arrangements, but there is the probability of a diffusion of functions between the emergency printing being done in various ways and the work of the House. The amendments were delivered in accordance with the usual practice, and I suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman consults the House.

HOUSE OF COMMONS(COMPTON REPORT)

Mr. Speaker: I now wish myself to make a statement.
On 22nd October last I informed the House that I had invited Sir Edmund Compton to undertake a review of the administrative services of the House, with particular reference to organisation and staffing. Sir Edmund has completed his task, and the report is now in my hands. I am formally laying the report on the Table today. Thereafter it will be printed and made available as soon as possible.
I will now enter into consultations about setting up the small committee of Members to which I referred in my earlier statement.
I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will wish me to express the gratitude of the House to Sir Edmund Compton for the considerable time and effort he has devoted to this task and for the speed with which he has produced his report.

HUNTERSTON (DEVELOPMENT)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I begin by apologising for the length of the statement I wish to make.
With permission, I would like to inform the House of my proposals for Hunterston. A fuller statement of the strategy the Government will adopt, together with the conclusions I have reached on the planning applications now before me, has been placed in the Library.
My principal concern is to ensure that the limited area of flat land at Hunterston is used by industries which both require access to exceptionally deep water and will make a substantial contribution to the Scottish economy. Nothing less would justify the serious environmental sacrifice which is inevitably involved. Three major industrial uses have so far emerged as candidates for the use of the site: steel, oil refineries and gravity platform construction for North Sea oil development.
I deal first with steel. Present plans envisage the expansion of the steel industry in Scotland by some 25 per cent. over the next 10 years. I am glad to tell the House that the British Steel Corporation has now decided to build a direct reduction plant at Hunterston, the first of its kind in Britain, which will produce 400,000 tonnes a year of iron feed for the electric are furnaces in Scotland and elsewhere.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: When?

Mr. Ross: The cost of this will be around £15 million to £20 million. In addition, work has started on the construction of the iron ore terminal at Hunterston, and together these two projects amount to a commitment of £55 million to £60 million in steel industry development on the peninsula. Hunterston is also one of the sites in the West of Scotland under consideration for the corporation's new electric are plant announced in the White Paper on the Ten Year Development Strategy for Steel, plans for which are nearing completion. Together with the developments at Ravenscraig, these new projects will give Scotland a total steelmaking capacity in modern plant of 4½ million tonnes.
I consider it essential that sufficient land remains available at Hunterston for longer-term steel development additional to these projects. The continued growth of this industry is essential to a large part of Scotland's industrial economy, and Hunterston is without doubt one of the best sites available for future steel development in North-West Europe. Not to safeguard sufficient space for this purpose would be a serious failure to accept our responsibility for the future.
The next category of industry is oil refineries. Following a public inquiry in 1970 my predecessor decided against zoning land for a refinery at Hunterston on the application then submitted by Chevron. I now have before me revised applications by both Chevron and ORSI. My predecessor's memorandum of 30th May last year indicated that although a refinery on its own was unlikely to be acceptable, the case for one could be considered if it was associated with other developments which would bring substantial benefit to the Scottish economy.
In particular it was suggested that a refinery might be associated with steel development if refinery gas were supplied on attractive terms to meet the requirements of a direct reduction plant. However, the British Steel Corporation has now told me that it no longer sees any significant advantage in this form of energy supply as compared with the natural gas which will shortly be available from the North Sea. Furthermore, I am now advised that future steel developments, particularly an integrated basic oxygen plant and the finishing processes that might be associated with it, could need some of the land which is now the subject of the refinery applications.
I have also had to pay special attention to the conclusions now reached by the Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee after a very lengthy and thorough study. The committee's report suggests that provided certain stringent safeguards on siting, design, construction and operation of the installations were strictly observed a refinery would not be incompatible with requirements to safeguard the two nuclear power stations already on the peninsula. My concern is first for life and property in the area, including any risk to a major source of electric power supply to the Scottish economy: and. secondly, to permit no development at

Hunterston which could subsequently constitute an unduly inhibiting effect upon further development of land for which the site is specially suited. I have therefore concluded that I should be justified in permitting refinery development, with all the safeguarding requirements that this would entail, only if there were over-riding reasons for the Hunterston site being chosen for such development. I am not persuaded that such reasons exist.
I therefore have it in mind to reject both applications, but I do so with regret, and in full recognition of the scale of the developments themselves, the substantial projects associated with them and of their potential for future development in the economy.
Finally, I come to the question of oil platform sites. The rapid growth in the volume of proven North Sea oil reserves and the urgent need for the United Kingdom to reduce her dependence upon imported supplies have created a pressing demand for gravity production platforms for this new industry. Substantial benefits would be derived both for Scottish industry and employment and for the United Kingdom balance of payments from suitable construction sites. I have already a planning application for the construction of these platforms at Hunterston and other projects are expected to follow.
This type of development is not incompatible with the long-term use of land for the steel industry and recent studies indicate that Hunterston could well provide good sites for gravity platform construction. Accordingly, I have decided that land should be available for this purpose at Hunterston, and further work is in hand to settle the detailed siting and appropriate scale of development.
Those who get orders for platform construction must do so on their merits and not simply because they have access to a site. I intend therefore to ensure that the Hunterston sites will be available only to firms who obtain orders, and I propose to enter into consultations with Ayr County Council and with the Hunterston Development Company to discuss these matters.
I have reached these conclusions on the most careful examination of all the evidence now before me. I am to meet Ayr County Council on 26th July to receive


its views and to consider action before further planning decisions are taken. My Department is writing to Chevron and ORSI today informing them of my conclusions and inviting their comments prior to my finally deciding their applications.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement, and particularly his confirmation that Hunterston is to be used for the development of the steel industry. I believe that that is a sensible use of the very special assets which we have at Hunterston and which have important implications for the whole of the Scottish steel industry.
I have some questions to put to the right hon. Gentleman. First, will he confirm that the total Scottish capacity—I believe that it is a total of 4½ million tonnes—is no greater than that which was proposed by his predecessor in the Conservative Government in December 1972? Therefore, the Secretary of State is going no further with the capacity of the Scottish industry than the previous Government in December 1972.
Secondly, I find it significant that no decision has yet been taken on the new electric are plant and that no date has been given for the start of the direct reduction plant. Hunterston is an asset which is far too important for Scotland as a whole. We cannot afford to allow the site to be sterilised any longer because of delays on the part of the British Steel Corporation. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us an undertaking that he will inform us of when the work will start.
Thirdly, what is the position of the ore pelletisation plant which has been proposed by private enterprise interests, involving private funds, and which makes good sense in terms of strengthening the Scottish steel industry as a whole?
Has the right hon. Gentleman come to any decision on Stewarton? That is particularly important because of the known lack of capacity in Scotland to cope with the refining of North Sea oil when it comes ashore. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that we shall know without delay the Government's whole refinery policy? It is a matter which has very important planning implications throughout the whole of Scotland.

Mr. Ross: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the importance of Hunterston. The location of deep water at Hunterston and various other matters saw the conception of steel development in the area.
We are, of course, making no change in capacity. What we are doing—and this is the first decision that has been taken—is in relation to certain probables and possibles that were in the White Paper of the previous administration. One thing has now been decided—namely, the decision to go ahead. That is the first step that can be taken and I think that it should be welcomed.
I now deal with the ore pelletisation plant. I received the private enterprise application yesterday from Ayr County Council. It is, of course, too early to say exactly what will happen. I have accepted the recommendation of the Reporter that Bloak Moss should not be specially retained for refinery or for petrochemical installations. I have, however, decided that 1,400 acres should be rezoned for clean industrial purposes.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the work will start on the steel plant? That is what matters to people in Scotland.

Mr. Ross: I cannot say when it will start. It could not start until a decision had been taken. That decision has now been taken.

Mr. Lambie: When we consider that the whole saga of the Hunterston development started in 1969 and that Ayr County Council's original proposals included detailed planning application for an oil terminal, an oil refinery petro-chemical complex, an iron ore and general users' terminal and green-field integrated steel works involving 20,00 jobs, this is surely a mouse of a statement—namely, an iron ore terminal, many promises and nothing else.
What guarantees has my right hon. Friend received from Dr. Finniston, chairman of the British Steel Corporation, of a starting date for the pelletisation plant and the electric are furnaces? Is this not an attempt by the BSC to pre-empt the whole of the Hunterston site until the year 2000? What guarantees will the Government give in their oil refining


policy that the projected production of North Sea oil by the year 1980 of 150 million tons will be refined in Scotland at Hunterston for the benefit of the people of Scotland and that it will not be refined as some Opposition hon. Members want, in England and in Europe?

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend must appreciate that there was an inquiry into Hunterston. The Hunterston business started before 1969 and the inquiry was one of the longest ever held. The decision about the Chevron refinery was given by my predecessor. I believe there were two statements, one in December 1970 and the other in February 1971. Many of the points he has raised were dealt with then.

Mr. Lambie: What is my right hon. Friend going to do? Never mind the past.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend has had plenty to say about this over a long time.

Mr. Lambie: Five years.

Mr. Ross: I can appreciate much of his concern. Let me tell him this: the unique facilities of Hunterston were always foreseen, specifically and especially, as a safeguard for steel production in Scotland. It would be quite wrong for anyone, bearing the importance of that in mind, so to use that limited area of land to prevent such full development. My hon. Friend must appreciate that we have now made a start. There is the iron ore terminal and we now have the British Steel Corporation actually deciding to produce there.

Mr. Lambie: Nonsense.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: When?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) was a member of the previous administration. He must appreciate that this or any other decision could have been taken a long time ago. For reasons best known to themselves, the last administration did not take any decision. Let him not ask me "Why?" and "When?" and all the rest. The fact is that we have made a start at Hunterston and we are not prepared to see the sterilisation of the land on the lines my hon. Friend suggests. I have specifically mentioned this question of

the platform siting, which is of considerable importance at the moment.

Mr. Corrie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I probably stand alone in the House today in congratulating him, representing, as I do, the people of the area in question? Does he appreciate that this has been a sore point and a tremendous talking point for the last few months? Is he further aware that I am pleased to hear that he has come out against petro-chemicals on that site, particularly in view of the safety angle? I am certain that people in the area will accept that steel will now go there because the terminal is already there. I sincerely hope that all the environmental problems which arise with this industry will be taken care of. The right hon. Gentleman has already given me a promise on that and I am sure he will hold to it. The ore terminal has made a tremendous mess of the area—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must put his remarks in an interrogative form.

Mr. Corrie: Will the Secretary of State assure us that the environment will be looked after?

Mr. Ross: We are doing this at present. Ayr County Council has been passing to me the comments of the local population about the developments presently taking place there. I am sure that that will continue. The hon. Gentleman mentioned safety. This is one of the most important things. People cannot shrug it off. There are already two nuclear power stations on this peninsula. We have just had a report from the Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee. I can tell the House that this is one of the things that I had to weigh most carefully. I had to take into account the power presently available and that which will be available from those stations in future, and the risk to other industries. There are considerations which apply to industries not necessarily tied to this site.

Mr. Sillars: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be some concern in many quarters of Scotland about the decision to sterilise part of the land at Hunterston for the British Steel


Corporation—with which I agree—without having obtained a target date from the corporation for the ore reduction plant or the integrated plant? Will he accept that there are many who believe that it is the correct strategy to leave a seaboard site for the Scottish steel industry in future? Nevertheless, will he convey to the BSC the view that there is a limit beyond which no one in Scotland can retain that site for ever without some definite proposal for development? Is he aware that everyone welcomes the decision about the building of oil platforms at Hunterston because many of us believe that it is time that West Central Scotland got a share of the developments associated with North Sea oil?

Mr. Ross: I am glad that my hon. Friend takes this attitude. I can readily appreciate the concern felt by people as a result of the delays. One of my tasks in recent months has been to bring the British Steel Corporation to the point of deciding that the pelletisation plant would be there. This was said clearly in the White Paper produced by the previous Government. As for the are furnace plant, there are three suitable sites in Scotland—Hallside in Lanarkshire, Glengarnock in Ayrshire—in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie)—

Mr. Lambie: It is not going there.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend has not asked very many questions about that. The other site is Hunterston. I appreciate the difficulty concerning the social aspects of such decisions and I agree that we do not want to wait too long. I should like to get a commitment about this major plant as early as possible—a commitment to the new generation of steel plant for this area. But we cannot let the land go and lose the opportunity. I know that the British Steel Corporation considers this site as one of the best, the best probably, in North-West Europe. Because of that I am confident that we shall get that final decision.

Mr. John Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that what he has announced today has most disquieting aspects for the future of industry? Is not the truth that this quite exceptional

site, as I understand it, is to be frozen, made immobile, until such time as the British Steel Corporation in its own good time—and now it is assured that no one else will use it—takes some distant decision on it? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that it represented one of the great potential industrial sites? Is he aware that what he has done is to cut across the whole question of the environmental characteristics of Hunterston and given to it an uncertain industrial future which is totally unsatisfactory?

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman might well have said that to the Secretary of State for Scotland in the last administration. He was a member of that administration and I suppose had considerable influence at the time, in addition to having experience in one of the industries concerned. It is not for him to tell me anything like that when we are actually making a start. I have already given a pledge that I am not prepared to see Hunterston sterlised in this way.

Mr. David Steel: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that, subject to seeing the details of his plans in the Library, this statement will be widely welcomed in Scotland and for reasons quite contrary to those put forward by the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies)? Does he agree that his decision ends much of the uncertainty surrounding the development of this site? Presumably he has some forecasts of employment prospects for the area in the fairly near future. Presumably there will be housing requirements. Has he any plan to increase the resources of the Scottish Special Housing Association so that it can cope with these as well as with the Northern oil developments and its traditional programme elsewhere in Scotland?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that at this particular site, which is an isolated site, a certain infrastructure is already available and housing can easily be coped with by the local authorities. If they require help we shall be able to give it. There is considerable male unemployment in the area, around 5 per cent. There will be a considerable number of jobs, in the first instance in construction, some of which is going on at the present time. We have to bear in mind the balanced development of this


site. I appreciate the feelings of some of my hon. Friends about nothing being done until the end of the century. That is something we are not prepared to accept.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Stewart.

Mr. Lawson: On a point of order. As a Member who represents most of the steel interests in Scotland—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I intend to call the hon. Member.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that, given the inequalities of the site, the announcement he has made today will be greatly welcomed in Scotland? Will he accept that had there been a Scottish Regional Department it would have been much easier to force the two corporations to start development earlier than they might have done? Will he also accept that his decision about the oil refinery will also be welcomed since that can be placed in another part of Scotland, as it is not essential that it should go to Hunterston. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has made any assessment of the number of workers who might be engaged in due course as a result of steel development and the oil platforms?

Mr. Ross: It would be very difficult to make a definite estimate of the number of workers to be involved since that would depend entirely on the number of platform sites made available. I visualise that there will be more than one, as there is capacity for more than one. There could be as many as 400 jobs per site. There were 800 people working at a site I recently visited at Methil although we must not suggest that there is continuous work there. In relation to his general welcome, I entirely agree that this is a balanced and sensible approach; and it is time the uncertainty was ended as far as the two oil companies are concerned.
On the hon. Member's attitude to an independent steel corporation, I hope he will turn his mind back to what happened when Colvilles were on their own and Sir Andrew McCance told them he could not find the money for his own developments, far less go ahead with the steel strip mill that we were pressing for, so that the hon.

Gentleman's comment is not justified by his experience.

Mr. Lawson: May I compliment my right hon. Friend on what I regard as the wisdom with which he has approached this matter and particularly on the fact that he has treated this unique site as a site which should be reserved for the type of development most suited to this area, ensuring that the site is not built up with forms of development that might very well take place elsewhere? May I ask my right hon. Friend, however, to bear in mind, in considering where the steel industry is to be sited, that we must ensure adequate development in the area? May I ask him to think particularly of Hallside, to recognise that most of the steelworkers are still to be found in Lanarkshire and that we want adequate development of the steel industry there? In the meantime I support the right hon. Gentleman entirely and so will all who have looked closely at what he has done at Hunterston.

Mr. Ross: I thank my hon. Friend. He will recall that he and I were very much concerned with ideas about Hunterston at the start, seeing it as of unique value to Scotland and the Scottish steel industry in the long term. He is quite right that we have to be careful about what we do because it has unique facilities. It was laid down by the previous Secretary of State that the industry to be put there should be dependent on these unique facilities—and there are other places for the oil refineries. I admit that there were times when, because of our desperation, we in North Ayrshire would have welcomed any such proposals. If we can get balanced and really good development of the steel industry, that is the right way in which we should proceed.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has thrown away a glorious opportunity to revitalise the West of Scotland and that all he has done is to put up a notice at Hunterston saying, "Private steel developers keep out"? The only specific thing he has said is that there is to be a £50 million direct reduction plant, with no guarantee of jobs or of a date when it may be coming. Secondly, another plant has to be reserved for Hunterston but no decision has been made by the British Steel Corporation to build there. Has he not


thrown away several private development opportunities including one of £200 million involving 2,000 jobs?
Would he not agree that his hatred of private enterprise has compelled him to sterilise this site for the nationalised British Steel Corporation without one specific promise of date or jobs?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is full of surprises. He spent the last weekend telling us about the mistakes his Government made. His Government could have taken a decision on this. He was a member of it, but they did not take a decision. What he says now surprises me—or perhaps it shows how little influence he had with the previous Government, and that may be just as well. I should like to think his influence is continuously declining because most of what he has said is absolute nonsense and not in accordance with the facts.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is my right hon. Friend aware that had it been left to the Scottish National Party there would have been no development at Hunterston at all because at the public inquiry in 1969 the Bute and North Ayrshire constituency party of the SNP gave evidence against any development at all taking place there? Would my right hon. Friend accept that there is now a need to pressurise British Petroleum into expanding its refinery capacity at Grangemouth? Could I advise my right hon. Friend that the only thing visible to the people of Scotland is the terminal which is the point at

which oil will flow away from Scotland rather than being refined in Scotland? In view of the decision he has accepted to site the refinery in Hunterston, will my right hon. Friend use his influence, through himself and the Secretary of State for Energy, to pressurise British Petroleum to expand their refinery capacity at Grangemouth?

Mr. Ross: I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will be interested in my hon. Friend's supplementary question. I understand that at one time British Petroleum put forward certain proposals for increasing output at Grangemouth, and that may come about.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Motion made, That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) Order 1974 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Coleman.]

Mr. John Lee: I hope the House is to be given an opportunity to challenge this on a Division.

Mr. Speaker: Certainly. This has to be put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order. The hon. Member can say "No" if he wishes.

Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Statutory Instruments):

The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 52.

Division No. 69.]
AYES
[4.10 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Davidson, Arthur
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Archer, Peter
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)


Ashley, Jack
Deakins, Eric
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Atkins, Ronald
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bates, Alf
Dempsey, James
Hamling, William


Beith, A. J.
Doig, Peter
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dormand, J. D.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Heffer, Eric S.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hooley, Frank


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dunn, James A.
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)


Bradley, Tom
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Huckfield, Leslie


Brown, Bob (Newcastle upon Tyne, W.)
Dykes, Hugh
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Edelman, Maurice
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Buchan, Norman
English, Michael
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Hunter, Adam


Campbell, Ian
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Jackson, Colin


Cant, R. B.
Ewing, Harry (St'ling, F'kirk &amp; G'm'th)
Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)


Carmichael, Neil
Finsberg, Geoffrey
John, Brynmor


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Freeson, Reginald
Johnson, James (K'ston upon Hull, W)


Clemitson, Ivor
Freud, Clement
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Cohen, Stanley
Galpern, Sir Myer
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.
George, Bruce
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Cox, Thomas
Ginsburg, David
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Cunningham, G. (Isl'ngt'n, S &amp; F'sb'ry)
Golding, John
Judd, Frank


Cunningham, Dr. John A. (Whiteh'v'n)
Goodhart, Philip
Kaufman, Gerald


Dalyell, Tam
Graham, Ted
Kelley, Richard




Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)
Stott, Roger


Lamborn, Harry
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)


Lamond, James
Parry, Robert
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Lawson, George (Motherwell &amp; Wishaw)
Pavitt, Laurie
Tierney, Sydney


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Tinn, James


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pendry, Tom
Tomlinson, John


Lipton, Marcus
Perry, Ernest G
Torney, Tom


Lomas, Kenneth
Phipps, Dr. Colin
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


McCartney, Hugh
Rees, Rt. Hn. Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


McGuire, Michael
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Watkins, David


Mackenzie, Gregor
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Weitzman, David


Maclennan, Robert
Roper, John
Wellbeloved, James


McNamara, Kevin
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
White, James


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Whitlock, William


Marks, Kenneth
Sandelson, Neville
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)


Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh, W'wch, E.)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Meacher, Michael
Silkin, Rt. Hn. S. C. (S'hwark, Dulwich)
Winstanley, Dr. Michael


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Silverman, Julius
Winterton, Nicholas


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Small, William
Woodall, Alec


Moonman, Eric
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)



Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Spriggs, Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


O'Halloran, Michael
Stallard, A. W.
Mr. Donald Colemon and


Orme, Rt. Hn. Stanley
Steel, David
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Palmer, Arthur
Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)



Pardoe, John
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John





NOES


Allaun, Frank
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Sedgemore, Bryan


Ashton, Joe
Hatton, Frank
Sillars, James


Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)
Henderson, Douglas (Ab' rd' nsh're, E)
Skinner, Dennis


Biffen, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Snape, Peter


Bradford, Rev. R.
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Spearing, Nigel


Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.
Kerr, Russell
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)
Kinnock, Neil
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Craig, Rt. Hn. William (Belfast, W.)
Lambie, David
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Cryer, G. R.
Latham, Arthur (City of W'minster P'ton)
Watt, Hamish


Davidson, Arthur
MacCormack, Iain
West, Rt. Hn. Harry


Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)
Madden, M. O. F.
Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)
Ovenden, John
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)


Edge, Geoff
Paisley, Rev. Ian
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scunthorpe)
Prescott, John
Young, David (Bolton, E.)


Evans, John (Newton)
Richardson, Miss Jo



Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Roderick, Caerwyn E.
Mr. John Lee and


Flannery, Martin
Rooker, J. W.
Mr. Raphael Tuck.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

Question accordingly agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered.
That at this day's Sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 3, Mr. Speaker shall put any question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 (Continuance) Order 1974 not later than One o'clock or three hours after the commencement of the proceedings whichever is the later.—[Mr Mellish.]

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AMENDMENT) BILL

4.18 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Town and Country Planning Acts.
The very mention of "planning" these days causes grave apprehension in the hearts of many people. Although I

acknowledge that the initial Act introduced by the late Lord Silkin was vital to the proper planning of our nation, we have now reached the stage at which the ordinary folk are least considered when changes are made in the environment. The armoury of bureaucracy, both at national and local level is arraigned against the ordinary people.
Local authorities are not compelled to inform anyone of outline planning applications which they receive. If they so desire, they may insert advertisements in local newspapers, but it is hit or miss whether the people who are affected will get to know about what is going on.
Far too often people first hear about a planning decision when they hear the grinding of the bulldozers in a nearby field, lane or road. Not until then are they told by the local authority departments what the law is and how they can get copies of the Town and Country Planning Acts, but even if people were


given 20 years to study those Acts, the probability is that they would not understand them.
One of the major effects of my Bill would be to make it obligatory for local authorities to inform individual householders of any outline application that might affect their environment and their lives and also to inform them in detail as to what that means. This would go much further than a mere advertisement in the local newspaper. The local authority would have to decide. I assume that the local councillors will know full well how many streets, roads or avenues will be affected. Every householder who may be affected will be individually informed if my Bill becomes law.
The second factor relates to public inquiries. Very often a situation can arise in which ratepayers in an area are appalled and annoyed at the prospect of a certain planning application but their local authority is in favour of it. They can appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment for a public inquiry. Very often he grants it. What happens then? I have attended very many public inquiries. One has the feeling that ordinary people, when they come to the town hall to give their evidence why the planning application should not be proceeded with, feel that they have been arraigned before a court of law for some misdemeanour. The attitude of lawyers to people giving evidence places ordinary folk at a grave disadvantage. They cannot exploit or explain their case in a fitting manner for the benefit of the inquiry inspector or ultimately the Secretary of State. I say this in no sense of disrespect. It is a fact of life.
But in some parts of the country where a planning application is submitted the residents in that area may be wealthy enough to employ their own lawyers and town planners to represent them against the local authority and against the Minister. We know of a classic example in Cublington where those tactics proved successful. If they cannot afford to employ their own planning experts and lawyers, they stand very little chance of having their case properly presented.
The second provision of my Bill would allow that where local residents are properly registered as a residents' association

or tenants' association with the local authority, and they wish to oppose a planning application, they will be entitled to appeal to the Secretary of State for financial aid to assist them to proceed with their appeal.
Often when a planning application reaches the local town hall, the planning officers looking at it will say, "Yes, it is technically possible". For example, if one wishes to put a petrol station in the middle of the grounds of Buckingham Palace, that is technically possible—but it would hardly be considered desirable. When an inquiry is ordered by the Secretary of State, often the planning officers, who are paid for in the main out of the rates paid by the people they represent, say they cannot appear at the inquiry to give their evidence because they have already committed themselves to the technical detail.
But there is much more in any planning application than simple technical detail. The environmental effects on people's lives must be taken into account. Even if a planning application is perfect in its technical outline, it can nevertheless blur and mar the environment of the homes and the lives of ordinary people. This Bill would ensure that, even where planning officers might agree with the technical data, if the local authority at a public inquiry decided nevertheless that it would oppose a planning application, it would be the bounden duty of those planning officers to represent their council and that of the legal officers to represent the ratepayers who have engaged them.
The result will be that this Bill, if it passes into law, will strengthen, encourage and increase that vital element of participation in all planning measures of, by and on behalf of the ordinary people of this country. If they know they are receiving a square deal, if they know they are given an honest break, it will encourage them to become involved. It will also give them that right to protest. At the same time it will not only enhance and strengthen participation but it will widen the boundaries of true democracy.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Mr. Jeffrey Archer (Louth) rose—

Mr. Patrick Cormack: On a point of order. It is the custom in this House for a Minister


to be present to listen to the presentation of a Bill. It is a great disappointment that nobody from the Department of the Environment is here.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): It may be a disappointment but it is not a point of order.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: I never use a point of order as an excuse to speak. Am I allowed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to oppose the Bill in particular but to support it in general?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As far as I am concerned, the hon. Gentleman is entitled to speak only if he is opposing the application of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) to bring in his Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Molloy, Mr. Ted Graham, Mr. Alec Woodall, Mr. Sydney Bidwell, Mr. Ronald Brown, Mr. Gwilym Roberts, Mr. Ioan Evans, Mr. William Hamilton, Mr. John Lee.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AMENDMENT)

Mr. William Molloy accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Town and Country Planning Acts; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Thursday 18th July and to be printed. [Bill 89.]

NORTHERN IRELAND CONSTITUTION

4.28 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the White Paper on the Northern Ireland Constitution (Command Paper No. 5675).
On Thursday last I presented a White Paper on behalf of the Government. The steps announced in it followed the breakdown of the Executive on 28th May, following which there was a debate in this House when I made it clear that while I had not been prepared to negotiate on constitutional matters with the Ulster Workers' Council during the UWC strike, I was at all times willing to meet elected representatives. Indeed, both my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I had done so on a number of occasions. I further made it clear that I had already begun, and would continue, the task of exploring the views of political leaders in Northern Ireland.
It was in that context that the White Paper was presented last Thursday and it is in this further context that, as was announced then, two pieces of legislation will follow. The first is the Northern Ireland Bill, shortly to be taken through all its stages, and the second is the order renewing the Emergency Provisions Act which is to be taken tonight.
The debate today gives extra time for discussion on both those pieces of legislation. This is right given the importance of the issues involved. Tonight we are to take the order renewing the Emergency Provisions Act and next week, I understand, we are to take all stages of the Northern Ireland Bill.
On 28th May 1974 the Executive fell. It fell in face of the Ulster workers' strike. I have asserted that baldly in paragraph 26 of the White Paper, which says:
In plain terms the Ulster Workers' Council in association with the para-military organisations brought down the Executive, which, in a spirit of partnership had undertaken the tasks of government in Northern Ireland since January 1.
It was not an industrial dispute and it was backed by para-military forces. Indeed, when the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the


right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) met my right hon. Friend the Minister of State they were accompanied by three members of the para-military forces.
Under the Constitution Act, the Executive could have lasted for four years, the lifetime of the Assembly under Section 27 of the Act, but only as long as it had the support of the Assembly. The Executive was increasingly under strain after the General Election of 28th February. It could last only as long as there was support for it in the Assembly. In the face of the stoppage, that support was not forthcoming. Democratic government can be only by consent. Consent was not forthcoming from the Protestant community. Indeed, it was from the Protestant community that there came the confrontation in the name of loyalty. The confrontation arose, they said, out of the facts of Sunningdale and their lack of support in particular for the Council of Ireland.
In addition, the unremitting campaign of the Provisional IRA and the violent actions of other extremist organisations, including sectarian murders of Roman Catholics, had created an atmosphere of increasing polarisation and distrust, unreceptive to the politics of consultation and compromise.
On the fall of the Executive I advised Her Majesty to prorogue the Assembly. It was quite clear that it was not possible to form a new Executive. I could not justify coming to this House in a few weeks' time to ask for a further period of prorogation. Dissolution was the only further alternative then open to me. There could then have been an election of a new Assembly leading to an Executive under the 1973 Act. I am quite clear that this was not acceptable. After that election I would have been back in the same position as I was on 28th May. The Constitution Act, it was made clear to me, was not acceptable to certain party leaders. Another way forward had to be found. This is spelled out in the White Paper and in the Bill.
I must at this point deal with the question of the day-to-day government of Northern Ireland which faced me after the fall of the Executive. There were provisions in the Northern Ireland Con

stitution Act 1973 which enabled the situation to be dealt with in the short run. But we are now faced with something more than a mere interregnum between Executives. We are faced with the need for United Kingdom Ministers to carry on the government of Northern Ireland for a period of many months. We are, therefore, proposing that certain temporary arrangements should be made for the orderly government of Northern Ireland. The Bill to introduce those temporary arrangements will not repeal any part of the Constitution Act 1973. It will temporarily set aside some parts of that Act, but the great bulk of the Act will remain in full force.
The temporary arrangements fall into two parts. The first is legislation. It would clearly be impossible for this Parliament to find time to take Bills to deal with all the legislation that will be necessary for Northern Ireland. We therefore propose that there should be power for Her Majesty to make Orders in Council legislating for Northern Ireland on those matters on which the Northern Ireland Assembly has power to legislate. As during direct rule in 1972–73, it will be possible to make these orders only if they have first been approved in draft by both Houses of Parliament, unless they are extremely urgent, in which case they must be approved within 40 sitting days of being made. But although this power to legislate by Order in Council will exist, the Government will endeavour to proceed by way of Bill, passing through both Houses of Parliament in the normal way, wherever major legislation is required, or sensitive issues are involved.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend will recall that when we were in opposition we were concerned that so many important matters which were then before Stormont came before the House at a late hour and could not be criticised or amended. Knowing my right hon. Friend's attitude towards former Members of the Assembly who were not prepared to co-operate, I would point out that there were others in Ireland who were prepared to do so and should be able to make their voices heard. Therefore, would he consider talking to the Leader of the House about the establishment of some Committee of the House, as we urged in opposition, to consider


draft legislation before it comes to the Floor of the House?

Mr. Rees: We will certainly consider that matter as my hon. Friend has described it. As I said the other day, I find that a strange doctrine coming from hon. Members—not my hon. Friend, of course—who made sure that the Assembly did not work and allowed measures to go through without any discussion. It is strange for them to raise their hands in horror now and say how terrible it is that something should go through this House in a short time. Nevertheless, of course this will be looked at. I presume that we are coming to the end of the Session and the matter would be one for a new Session, but I will of course consider it.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: Of course we can discuss this matter during the passage of the Bill, but I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that he hoped to proceed as far as possible by way of Bill. Does that mean that it would be possible to deal by way of Bill in this House with matters which would normally have come before the Assembly, or must those matters appear as Orders in Council?

Mr. Rees: What I said was that, wherever major legislation is required or sensitive issues are involved, we shall obviously take this into account. But on other matters, one of the things that I shall have to put to the House very quickly is that Northern Ireland needs money. I would propose—I am thinking aloud here—to do this by Order in Council as a first thought under the procedures of the Bill which I hope will be passed next week.
The second part of our proposals concerns executive government. At present, the two Ministers of State and two Under-Secretaries of State at the Northern Ireland Office hold office as heads of the various Departments in Northern Ireland. They are techincally accountable to the Northern Ireland Assembly for the way in which they discharge those offices. It is proposed that instead of this situation the Secretary of State should control all Departments in Northern Ireland with the assistance of his junior Ministers, and that he and his ministerial team should then be accountable to this Parliament for the discharge of their functions.
These interim and temporary arrangements will provide for better government of Northern Ireland than would have been possible under the Constitution Act in the absence of the Northern Ireland Executive. But I must make it plain that they are not, in the view of the Government, a satisfactory long-term solution. For that long-term solution, we have proposed a Constitutional Convention.
As is stated in paragraph 48 of the White Paper, the Government continue to believe that the best and most desirable basis for political progress in Northern Ireland would be the establishment of local institutions enjoying broadly-based support throughout the community. That is the essence of the situation, the essence of what we must all strive to achieve.
This Government recognise, as did the last Government in their White Paper of March 1973, that an effective system of government for Northern Ireland, as indeed for any other community, can work only if all sections of that community are prepared to let it work. The system of government proposed in the 1973 White Paper, and made law by the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 was an imaginative step forward, and one which appeared both to the Government and to the Opposition of the day to offer a realistic opportunity for Northern Ireland and its people to find a way forward out of violence and instability.
We have now come to a point where we must take stock of the situation again. We must again face up, as the previous Government did, to the need to ensure that the proposals made for Northern Ireland's future system of government command the acceptance of the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland. This must be remembered as we debate today and next week the Constitutional Convention for Northern Ireland. This will not be a legislative body but will be created solely for the purpose of considering, in the words of Clause 2(1) of the Bill,
…what provision for the government of Northern Ireland is likely to command the most widespread acceptance throughout the community there".
If the Bill is passed, it will be the law of the land. The Convention will be given an initial life of six months, but it will be dissolved earlier if it presents its


report within that period; on the other hand, if it needs more time for its work, then, subject to Parliament, its term can be extended. The Convention's report, when it is completed, must be laid before Parliament. It may then be desirable to embark on a further test of Northern Ireland opinion, and to mount a referendum in that province; if that is required, then the Bill will permit the holding of such a referendum. It will be for this Parliament to decide what action should follow.
The final decision for matters within the United Kingdom rests with this Parliament. I make it clear, as I did to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) in this House on 4th July, that any referendum on the link between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is not covered in the new Bill.
The Convention will be a Convention of Northern Irish people, elected by Northern Irish people, and considering the future of the Northern Irish people. We do not think it right that the Government should take a part in the Convention, or should seek to influence either its deliberations or its conclusions. There is, however, a considerable amount of information which could, and we think should, be made available to the Convention, particularly as regards procedures which might assist it in its work. We propose to publish before the elections to the Convention, information on procedures that might be followed with examples of historical precedents. It is worth looking in particular at the Newfoundland Convention of 1946.
In the same way as there are certain facts of life which the Government must face, there are also certain facts of life which the Convention must face. It is a fact that more public money is spent in Northern Ireland than the revenue raised there. This House has never hesitated to approve the transfer of additional moneys to Northern Ireland to help maintain standards there, or to bring standards up to those prevailing in other parts of the United Kingdom. In 1973–74 the support for Northern Ireland was £376 million. We have spelt this out in the White Paper. At a later stage we shall expand on this to consider certain other aspects. It is right that the people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

should have all the relevant information before them. There are people in Northern Ireland who take a view that that is tantamount to UDI. If people are going to vote on this matter, it is important that the wider facts, not just the transfer of income, should be taken into account.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: My right hon. Friend talks of people in Northern Ireland and the Government having to face the facts of life. Is not one of the facts of life regarding the constitutional links between Great Britain and Northern Ireland that so far in the history of this link the British people have never had an opportunity to express their views? Will my right hon. Friend say how the Government intend to implement the pledge set out in paragraph 45(b) namely, that the constitutional arrangement
must be acceptable to the people of the United Kingdom as a whole…
What sort of test of opinion will be given to the people of Great Britain?

Mr. Rees: My view is that when the Convention reports, then the House of Commons is the place in which to consider the matter. I like to believe that I represent the people of my constituency as a whole, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman takes the same view about the people of Erith and Crayford.

Captain Orr: The Secretary of State spoke about laying down certain matters which might be helpful for the Convention. Will he give a little more information about what he has in mind before we debate the Second Reading of the Bill?

Mr. Rees: Perhaps I could develop my argument during the Second Reading. I have already mentioned the question of finance, and also the matter of information, which is not confined just to the Newfoundland Convention, but in general those are two factors which should be taken into account.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is not the wording of the White Paper a little strange since paragraph 45(b) mentions the pattern being
…acceptable to the people of the United Kingdom as a whole and to Parliament at Westminster.


If what my right hon. Friend says is the case, why is it not just the Parliament at Westminster?

Mr. Rees: I well remember writing this, and the reason is that Parliament at Westminster represents the people of the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Except on the Common Market.

Mr. Rees: I have responsibility for many things, but not for the Common Market.
It must not be forgotten that there is another side to this subject. If 97 per cent. of the taxpayers in the United Kingdom are to pay to support standards in Northern Ireland, they will expect that Northern Ireland itself will strive to attain a high standard of political responsibility there. If citizens in England, Scotland and Wales are to see young men from those countries lay down their lives in Northern Ireland, they will expect that the cause in which they lay them down will continue to be a just one.
These are facts which the Government must face. They are facts which the Convention must also face. The Government believe that there are other realities which cannot be ignored. The first, which I have already mentioned, is that there must be some form of partnership, because no political system will survive or be supported unless there is widespread acceptance of it within the community. Whatever the form of government and whatever label is attached to it, it is indispensable that it should be accepted by the community it serves. This has been put firmly in paragraph 45 of the White Paper.
In the discussions I have had with disparate groups of people, I have found that the question of power sharing has bitten deeply in the Province; it is something which is increasingly being understood. That may not be true of all aspects of the situation, and there may be differences of view, but I think it can truly be said that the subject of power-sharing has been taken on board.
The second fact is that there is an Irish dimension. Whatever their political views may be, the members of the Convention will have to recognise that Northern Ireland shares a common land frontier with the Republic of Ireland and that this,

together with the common history of Northern Ireland and of the Republic, creates a special situation. I repeat that there is an Irish dimension. The facts of history cannot be denied. This dimension in no way alters the other basic fact of life—namely, that no changes can be made to link North and South without the consent of the people of the North.
The political situation cannot be considered outside that of law and order, the Army and the police. Since 1969 we have seen 1,045 people dead—218 soldiers, 44 members of the UDR, 54 police, 729 civilians—and a further 12,686 injured, and compensation payments totalling £72 million. We have seen organised bombing and burning by para-military forces, primarily but not exclusively the provisional IRA. We have seen some 200 sectarian murders, many of them Catholic victims of Protestant extremists.
In the face of all this, the British Army has been involved in defence of the Civilian population. The Downing Street declaration of August 1969 stated:
The Northern Ireland Government have been informed that troops have been provided on a temporary basis in accordance with the United Kingdom's ultimate responsibility.
This temporary basis has continued for five years and the rôle of the Army has changed. The Army cannot replace the police, nor should it be asked to be a substitute. As part of the continuing evaluation of the situation, it is time to look at the crucially important problem of policing in Northern Ireland. Parts of Northern Ireland have for a long time not had a normal police service and ways must be found of providing it.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: The Secretary of State rightly says that security is the key to a great deal of constitutional advance. Will the Convention be entitled to discuss security and the control of security?

Mr. Rees: As far as I see the situation, the Convention is permitted—perhaps that is the wrong word to use for it sounds too pompous—to discuss any matter at all except that what it cannot discuss is the control of the British Army, which rests in this House.

Mr. Goodhart: What about the control of the police? If the Convention members have views on the police, it


would be sensible for them to discuss it and, if they have a unified view on the matter, to put it to us.

Rev. Ian Paisley: With regard to the Army, would the Convention be permitted, if I may use that term, to discuss how the Army might do Army duty only and how the police could be introduced for certain duties?

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman's point bluntly adds up to the question of the rôle of the police. I am saying that to come to any conclusion about the controlling of the Army by any future assembly would not be on. But if it is a question of the rôle of policing, I see no reason why that should not be. The police will have their own rules and regulations, if that is generally accepted in the Convention, but this will be a matter for the people of Northern Ireland to decide.
In the words of the White Paper,
Nothing would transform the security situation more quickly than a determination by the whole community to support the Police Service and co-operate with it. This is not happening. If it did take place, it would also have a fundamental effect on the need for the Emergency Powers Act in Northern Ireland, including detention, the operation of which is currently being examined by the Committee sitting under the chairmanship of Lord Gardiner. It would also enable the Army to make a planned, orderly and progressive reduction in its present commitment and subsequently there would be no need for the Army to become involved again in a policing rôle. This is the aim of the Government and must be the wish of the overwhelming majority of the people in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.
Successive Governments have affirmed their intention to phase out detention as soon as the security situation permits. This is a matter of vital significance in Northern Ireland. Later tonight we shall be debating an order to extend the Emergency Provisions Act for a period of six months. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has arranged for a debate of three hours instead of the usual one and a half hours, so that I need not speak at length on this question now. I do however want to tell the House that I shall be starting today a carefully phased programme of releases linked to a resettlement scheme involving the community which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has been working out in recent weeks. If the matter is raised in the

course of the debate my right hon. Friend will be able to explain in more detail what is involved in his scheme.
The phasing out of detention—the complete phasing out of it—is possible if the para-military organisations, on both sides, are prepared to respond to the step I have taken today. It is a step which represents a small number of releases, but it could be the beginning of phased releases. What matters is the response in the community, in the context of violence. A cessation of violence would ensure that the releases continue.
The end of the Executive was serious, but not the end of the story initiated by previous administrations; power sharing, in particular, was a success. As I have said in paragraph 26 of the White Paper,
If the Executive failed, the men who served in it did not fail. They disproved for ever the idea that it is not possible for Protestant and Roman Catholic to work together for the good of Northern Ireland and its people".
We must build on these foundations.
The Convention will provide an opportunity for the elected representatives of Northern Ireland and through them the people of Northern Ireland to consider the issue. Early in the life of this administration we legalised Sinn Fein and the UVF. The opportunity is there for all to see whether, in the absence of a gun, people will support them. I say to all those who seek to use the gun and the bomb—try the ballot box. The excuse that the presence of the British stands in the way is no longer good enough.
This White Paper is not the last chance, but it is an important one. So often the people of Northern Ireland, right through the community, feel that we British do not understand their problems. Well, here is their chance.
I urge those who seek to represent the people of Northern Ireland to remember the realities spelt out in the White Paper. I urge them to consider what is said about power sharing and about the Irish dimension. I remind them, too, of the British dimension. In the end the last word is with the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
The people of Northern Ireland have asked for an opportunity to settle their own affairs. It is the wish of all the British people that they use it for the


benefit of both communities in the Province.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Although the circumstances that have brought this debate about may have been fortuitous—having the debate today is as much due to the non-appearance of HANSARD as anything else—the result is felicitous in that we are discussing the Government's White Paper and the continuance of the emergency provisions on the same day. This is highly appropriate.
It is often thought that there cannot be a military solution in Northern Ireland without a political solution. There is certainly as much truth in the converse—that there cannot be a political solution without a military solution. It is very unlikely that any political arrangements, however ingenious, carefully contrived, or fair minded, can work for long if terrorism continues at its recent level. Under such conditions of violence, or near war, people do not think in the ordinary democratic categories, or in what we used to think were the ordinary democratic categories. The Taoiseach understood that very well and expressed it well when he said that the power-sharing Executive had been brought down by the IRA, as we warned it would, and the campaign of the IRA has provoked a massive sectarian backlash. This has underlined the only kind of solution which can bring peace to Northern Ireland and security for the minority in that area.
The search for acceptable constitutional arrangements is inextricably connected with the search for peace, or something near it. We shall not achieve consent unless we achieve peace as well, and we shall certainly not achieve peace if we assume that terrorists are merely slightly misguided activists, or if we assume that terrorism is merely an undesirable adjunct to normal peaceful democratic conditions, and that it can be dealt with without disturbance to normal democratic conditions.
The whole House will agree that the emergency powers are necessary. There may be scope for improvement or deletion here and there, but this is not the time to consider them in detail. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) piloted the Bill through

Committee and is much better qualified to deal with these points, and he will be winding up for the Opposition.
I trust that the Gardiner Committee will give the benefit of the doubt to the maintenance of an effective system of security. That is the least that it can do and the least we can do to help our security forces. The threat to law, democracy and liberty comes not from excess of powers being granted to our soldiers, or the police or the judiciary, but from the murderers, thugs and crooks who do not believe in any of these things. By all means improve the regulations, if improvements can be made, but let us not forget the conditions which make these regulations necessary.
The Secretary of State talked about phased releases and I hope that the Minister of State will go into this matter in considerable detail—

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The intention is to deal with them under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act procedure, because they fit into that. There is a small number of seven people involved, but releases can be continued and phased if violence is ended.

Mr. Gilmour: We are perfectly agreeable to dealing with them after 10 o'clock.
Meanwhile, as the White Paper implies in the passage on law and order in paragraphs 41 to 43, the Army must remain. I think that the overwhelming majority in this House is in favour of the Army continuing to perform the rôle which it has performed so superbly over the past five years. Anything which enabled us to lessen the Army's commitment in good faith would be widely welcomed though-out the country.
Before I leave the general subject of security I wish to raise two other matters. The first is the so-called guerrilla festival due to be held in Dublin and Belfast later this month. As the House will know, it is being organised by the Official Sinn Fein. It is described as the festival of anti-imperialist groupings. The idea, it is said, is to explain the so-called "struggle" of the Irish people with foreigners.
I read what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson had to say about this in the

 other place. I also read that the Secretary of State said here on 27th June that he would be looking at the conference very closely. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that I do not think that that is anywhere good enough. In the Belfast Telegraph of 12th June there is a report of a Press conference given by Mr. Sean Kenny, who is the director of international affairs of Sinn Fein. He is reported to have said:
Those attending would be best described as 'left wing political activists'. Their own Governments might describe them as guerrilla leaders.
No doubt there are many places where such a festival could be held. It is not for me to say whether Dublin is a suitable place, but I am quite sure that Belfast is not a suitable place. After all that Ulster has suffered at the hands of terrorists in the past five years it is surely unacceptable to hold a festival of terrorism there. I can imagine almost nothing more provocative or objectionable, and the Government must see that the conference does not take place.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: When I said that I was looking at it I meant that I had to look at it in the context of legislation passed by the previous administration. I have powers to deal with it, but in dealing with it I have to be careful not to give it the free publicity which has been given to it in many other places. I understand that it has even applied to the Irish Tourist Board for a grant.

Mr. Gilmour: I read that it had done that. Of course, the Secretary of State must act according to his powers, but if he does not have the powers now he could easily get them within the next fortnight. He would not find this House denying him any necessary powers. If the conference takes place, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman realises that it will cause grave offence not only in Ulster but also in England, and I have no doubt at all that it should be banned.
The second matter is the Irish Government's legal proceedings against this country in Strasbourg. The House will remember that the Irish Government made two main accusations. The first was that the United Kingdom was guilty of the administrative practice of shooting civilians. That ludicrous charge was dis

missed peremptorily two years ago. The second charge was that the United Kingdom was guilty of the administrative practice of inhuman or degrading treatment, or torture, of persons held in custody.
An "administrative practice" is defined as official tolerance of acts of torture in the sense that the superiors of those immediately responsible, though knowing about such acts, take no action to punish those responsible or to prevent repitition of such acts, or that the higher authority, in the face of numerous allegations, manifests indifference. Therefore, the charges are made not only against officers in the Army and the RUC but against Ministers of the British Government. The Irish Government continue with those allegations despite the good relations between the two countries and despite the change of Government both here and in Belfast.
I am sure that these procedings are good for the lawyers, but that they are not for anyone else. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir P. Rawlinson), who was Attorney-General in the last Government, put it in a recent debate, it is time for an honourable settlement to be made. He went on to say that these allegations did a disservice not so much to those accused but to Ireland itself. It seems to me grotesque that those proceedings should be pressing on. I hope, even at this late hour, that the Republic will do the proper thing and drop them.
When we discuss political developments in and the political future of Northern Ireland one virtue is often lacking on this side of the Irish Channel, and that is humility. Humility was a virtue wholly lacking in the Prime Minister's lamentable broadcast during the strike. That broadcast lacked virtually every quality that one could imagine. There are at least two reasons why humility is appropriate over here. The first is that the weapon of the political strike which brought down the Northern Ireland Executive was not fashioned in Ireland. It was fashioned in England and Scotland. It was condoned by the Labour Party. Then it was copied and transferred to Ireland. That is a truth which is as obvious to many Government supporters as it is to the Opposition.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: It is important to get this right. There were para-military forces involved who attended the meeting, with hon. Members present. I had to take account of what might have been done in the way of blowing up pylons, and so on. I shall not elaborate further. But it was not on all fours with what happened over here. I repeat that I am the son of a coal miner. We have never in my community used guns. That is the difference between the two. There is no comparison between the two.

Mr. Gilmour: Of course there are differences between the two. I accept that. However, on reflection the right hon. Gentleman will not say, I am sure, that there is no connection between the two. It is obvious that there is. There is often, regrettably, intimidation in strikes in this country, but where strikes are used for express political purposes—and these strikes have been widely reported on the other side of the Channel—[Interruption.] The constitution over here was in a sense subverted by direct action for political purposes. It will not do to pretend that what went on over here was legal and that what went on in Northern Ireland was different and totally illegal. The purposes for which a political strike was used over here were approved by the right hon. Gentleman, but apparently he did not approve of those purposes in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Carol Mather: Is not this a matter of principle? It is wrong of political parties to support political strikes. The same can be said of the Secretary of State for Social Services and her support of the recent strike over here, again entirely for political purposes.

Mr. Gilmour: The House is beginning to grasp that law, unlike peace, is indivisible. The more that both sides of the House bear that truth in mind the more likely we are to get our political arrangements right.
The second reason for some degree of humility on this side of the Channel is that it can scarcely be said that over the past few years British politics have been conducted with that moderation and self-restraint, co-operation between parties and resistance to extremism and extremists which we habitually commend to our fellow politicians in Northern Ireland.

So, whoever is entitled to cast the first stone, I do not think that it is the Prime Minister.
I do not think that the Secretary of State can be blamed for lacking humility in his White Paper. He certainly cannot be accused of trying to play too prominent a part in future events. Indeed, he seems to have left himself virtually nothing to do.
Before coming to that aspect, I should like briefly to examine the alternatives that were open to the Secretary of State in the difficult decision that he had to make.
First, he could have done nothing, which is always a temping course of action. Apart from the difficulty of running the Executive in the way that it has been run since its collapse and apart from all the anomalies to which the right hon. Gentleman referred last week, he would have had next month to decide to prorogue the Assembly again or to summon it and try to form another Executive. I think that it is generally accepted that the present Assembly could not produce another viable Executive; but another prorogation was theoretically possible, though I do not think that it would have achieved very much. Indeed, it might merely have exacerbated the situation.
Alternatively, the Secretary of State could have announced elections to a new Assembly under the same Constitution Act. That course clearly has attractions, but I find it hard to believe that new elections would have produced an Executive. I think that it would probably have led to elections taking place earlier than they will under the White Paper. That, too, might have exacerbated the situation.
So we come to the Government's choice of a constitutional convention. That course obviously has dangers, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed out last week, but, as he also indicated, virtually all other courses of action have dangers, too. Anyway, this is what the Government have decided upon and we must hope that it works.
Turning now to Part 7 of the White Paper, "The Next Steps", the key paragraph is paragraph 45. I hope that I


shall not transgress my own recommendations about humility by making a few remarks about them. It does not matter what phrases are used—details are not important—but that there has to be some form of partnership or power sharing, whatever it may be called, is self-evident. Perpetual rule by one party is bound to lead to abuses. That is as true in Ulster as it is in the North-East of England.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: And Sussex.

Mr. Gilmour: No. The abuses that have come to light in the north-east of England do not seem to be totally duplicated in Sussex.
It cannot be right for Ulstermen who sit on this side of the House to say that they accept power sharing but that they do not accept power sharing with the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) who, with Mr. Faulkner, played a distinguished part in the Executive. The reason for trying to exclude the hon. Gentleman is that he hopes ultimately for a united Ireland. I recognise that there is much natural fear and resentment in Ulster that a large minority want to belong to another country, but it cannot be right to try to deal with that problem by exclusion—by a kind of twentieth century Test Act. People's fitness for office must surely rest upon their behaviour rather than on their opinions. Apart from anything else, it is often difficult to know what their real opinions are. Therefore, we had better stick to their behaviour.
Instead of trying to deal with the problem by exclusion and loyalty oaths, the Unionists should try to deal with it by so governing Ulster that few people want a united Ireland.
The Unionists can surely point to the fact that Catholics in the North have certainly not voted with their feet against Northern Ireland. The percentage of Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland has gone up since partition. Of some 950,000 Irish-born immigrants in Britain over 700,000 came from the South, and of the 200,000 from the North a good many must be Protestants. Therefore, the Catholics in Ulster have preferred to stay there rather than to go either to the South or to Britain. Proportionately fewer

Catholics have come here from the North than from the South. Between partition and the 1966 census the population of the South declined and that of the North increased.
These figures should give Unionists confidence, and they surely reinforce the point that co-operation should depend upon the behaviour of those involved, not on their ultimate ambitions, which, in many cases, may not be fervently held.
Surely the proper dividing line should not be between those who want to stay British and those who want to join the South, but between those who work legally and democratically for their objective and those who are prepared to use violence to achieve their ends.
Secondly, one of the criticisms of the Sunningdale Agreement, one which seemed to me clearly invalid, was that it meant different things to different people. Those who wanted a united Ireland said that it pointed to a united Ireland and those who wanted to preserve the Union said that the Union was fully safeguarded. But there has never been a constitutional document which has not meant slightly different things to different people. Some element of ambiguity is present in all constitutions. It was and certainly is present in the classic American Constitution. Clarity is all right in its way, but it can be overdone.
Thirdly, there is the Irish dimension. Of course, geography dictates that there must be an Irish dimension, but the size of that Irish dimension seems to depend very much on the conduct of the Irish Government. If the Irish Government build up trust in the North by increasing co-operation on the border, by making an acceptable agreement over arrested terrorists and other matters, the Irish dimension will expand. If the Irish Government do none of those things the Irish dimension will shrink very sharply.
We wish the Government well on the path that they have chosen. It would be inappropriate now to express great optimism or great pessimism. But of one thing I am sure. We want Ulster to remain in the United Kingdom. We have been together a long time to the great mutual advantage of all, and that historic connection should not be severed now. We want to preserve the United Kingdom and we want to preserve Ulster as part of that United Kingdom. I am


sure that it is possible to work out arrangements which will achieve that objective.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Reconciliation with one's right hon. and hon. Friends, in one case of many years, is always an agreeable experience.
I make no bones about the fact that I came prepared with a very long speech offering the most gloomy forebodings about the White Paper. Fortunately, the House will not be burdened with that speech, for one very good reason. It argued that the White Paper had no hope of success unless one condition was fulfilled: that, at any rate, a start should be made on the phasing out of internment without trial. Therefore, it was with genuine delight that I heard my right hon. Friend in his opening remarks says that at 10 o'clock this evening—I have no reason to doubt his good faith—plans would be laid before the House for the ending of internment without trial.
In present conditions this may be much easier, because of the incident at Rathcoole, of which my right hon. and hon. Friends are aware, in which a number of Protestants were taken in. I now gather from Assemblyman Peter McLachlan, and many others, that the Protestant community for the first time has really understood what it is like to be taken into detention without trial. From what I am told from many sources—I can go only on this—now that the Rathcoole incident has taken place there has been some understanding of the anger of the Catholic community about what Long Kesh meant. Therefore, it may be easier because for the first time the Protestant community have some sympathy towards the gradual release of those who are detained—at any rate, those detained without trial—at Long Kesh.

Mr. James Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman is doing a grave injustice to the Protestant community by saying that it is only now and as a result of the arrest of Protestants and their detention that Protestans are turning against the concept of internment. Although it is a distasteful procedure, it is nevertheless necessary. I still regard it personally as necessary, as do the majority in Northern Ireland. That applies across the board, irrespective of

religion. The Army has said frequently to me that it cannot operate effectively if internment comes to an end.

Mr. Dalyell: I should like to apply the kind of humility about which the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) was talking. One of my constant themes throughout this matter has been that people such as myself had better not lay down the law on what is good and proper in Ulster. I had better stick to my own precepts. I accept in that spirit what the hon. Gentleman has said.
That intervention leads me to my second point. If we let people out of detention without trial, we are asking rather a lot of the British Army. It must be said that when men have often risked their lives in order to put those whom they think are malefactors of some kind into detention in Long Kesh, it is asking a great deal for them to accept their release. As one who would have argued that detention without trial was one of the reasons why the British Army should come out of Ulster, I should like to leave the matter by saying that at least one must not only understand the view of the Chief of Staff but understand that this matter is pertinent to the morale of the junior and middle ranks of the Army, and that this is asking a lot. Perhaps my right hon. Friend could make it known to the Army that some of us who have been wondering about its rôle and have felt that an army would not solve the historic problems of Ireland, would nevertheless like it passed on to the officers, NCOs and other ranks that what will be put before the House at 10 p.m. tonight is asking a lot of human nature and the British Army, and that if the Army accepts it, then it is enormously to its credit that it should do so.
I do not believe that speeches should be any longer than they have to be. With those remarks, I cut out all that I would otherwise have said and close my speech.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: It is important that we in this House should adopt as far as possible a consensus approach to the White Paper. Following the Secretary of State's statement last Thursday, it seemed to me that we were, at long last, moving in that


direction. But I was a little disappointed by the approach of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, whose contribution seemed somehow to be out of tune. While others in the House seemed to be in a mood to put the past behind them, it seemed that he, almost alone, was inclined to look back in anger.
We can understand and sympathise with my right hon. Friend. Despite the many burdens of office, while he was Prime Minister he devoted a great deal of time and energy to Northern Ireland affairs, and he accepted full responsibility for the decisions and policies of the Government of which he was the head. One can understand his feeling of frustration over the collapse of those policies. But, just as we in Ulster are often advised to put the past behind us, I am confident that on reflection my right hon. Friend will overcome his disappointment and attune his thoughts rather more to the spirit of realism and even optimism which has been apparent in London and in Northern Ireland in recent days.
We have been further encouraged by the words of the Secretary of State and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour). It seemed that both of them were indicating much firmer thinking on the future rôle and standing of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. This will be welcomed by all right-thinking people. We who always had our doubts about the former policies, and expressed those doubts, have no intention of indulging in tiresome reminders of our attitude. We only ask that this time our views may not be entirely discounted. It may, perhaps, be that we could justly ask that this House listens to our views and might, at least, accept that we possibly know as much about Northern Ireland as do hon. Members from other parts of the United Kingdom.
The Secretary of State deserves praise and congratulations, not for having conceded various points to various people on various matters but on his courage and realism. For a long time while he was the Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland affairs, we always felt that he was one of the very few hon. Members of the House who understood what it was all about. Although there were times

when we had our reservations about the Northern Ireland policies of the Labour Party, we never had the fear that he could advocate a course of action without fully realising what the end product would be. That always brought us a great deal of reassurance.
It would be sheer impertinence for me to appeal to hon. Members of the right hon. Gentleman's party to support him in his present efforts, but I say sincerely to those hon. Members on the Government side of the House who have taken a deep interest in Northern Ireland affairs—appreciating the sincerity of their political views and sympathies and, perhaps, even their religious sympathies—that they should recognise that the realistic approach of their present Secretary of State seems likely to safeguard most effectively the true long-term interests of the people of Ireland, with whose interests they are quite properly concerned.
I and, I think, all of my hon. Friends welcome the setting up of the Constitutional Convention, which was a proposal put forward to the Secretary of State's predecessors by those of us who survived from the previous Parliament. I am thinking particularly of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).
The White Paper indicates that a firm decision has been taken to interpose between the Secretary of State and the Convention another person. Whatever the reasons for that decision, it raises a problem in the choice of chairman. The White Paper stipulates that he should be a person of high standing and impartiality from Northern Ireland. No one will quarrel with that. But "impartiality" must mean that he is one who is not and never has been a politician. This means, unfortunately, that he will be without political skill. Surely such skill is essential if he is to guide the Convention towards a solution which avoids the defects of the past experiments, which foundered precisely because they were a political nonsense.
What is even more important perhaps, is that the chairman will have to steer the Constitutional Convention away from a course which would lead to a head-on collision with the Government and the


Parliament of the United Kingdom. It has been suggested that a distinguished judge would serve the purpose. However, while judges undoubtedly have or, at any rate, should have the ability to evaluate and marshal facts, they are seldom experts in assessing the merits of political proposals, which depend for their succes not on cold logic but on their appeal to human nature, with all its cussedness and unpredictability. Is there not, too, a danger that this Constitutional Convention may be regarded as something like a Royal Commission, whose proposals would be presented in due course to the United Kingdom Government, in which case the Government would then decide which recommendations they would accept and which they would reject? But in this case they would be dealing with an elected body responsible to those who elected it, and therefore would rejection of its conclusions not produce a conflict between the two elected bodies?
If the Secretary of State is not to be involved, may we ask what is to be the mechanism for keeping the Convention in touch with Westminster thinking as circumstances change and even, as seems possible, as the composition of the Government at Westminster may change before conclusions are reached? It is important that these questions should be faced, because I believe that the people of Northern Ireland have no desire to engage in the exercise of self-determination in defiance of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Now that we are being listened to, now that they are being listened to, they would prefer to build a structure in partnership with their fellow citizens in the rest of the Kingdom, a structure within the United Kingdom and in the context of the Kilbrandon Report.
At this stage may I on behalf of my colleagues welcome most warmly the forthright assurance from the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour), and the declaration that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom. It is at long last that we have this firm declaration, and I think it will remove the hopes of the terrorists and the fear of the law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I regret having to intrude in the hon.

Member's speech, which is being well received, but does he not realise that the Constitution Act, which is accepted by the Labour, Conservative and Liberal parties, made a clear declaration that Northern Ireland would not be removed from the United Kingdom against the wishes of the majority of its people?

Mr. Molyneaux: Certainly the declaration was made, but then various subsequent attempts were also made, sometimes in the very next paragraph, to erode that position, and it was that which depressed and saddened many of us. The declaration was made in the document which preceded the setting up of the Sunningdale structure which was calculated and designed to remove and would have had the effect of removing, Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom had it been permitted to run its course.
Finally, I deal with the matter of our responsibilities as citizens of the United Kingdom. In the kindest possible way I would suggest that no possible good could come of lecturing Ulster people on their duties while they are being denied the privileges of British citizenship. The first of those privileges is being delivered from war and terror and having the right to play a full part in the defence of their own Province. The second privilege is that of feeling that they are fully represented in this Parliament which makes the laws which the people of Northern Ireland as British citizens must obey and which they are willing and glad to obey. Without that vital element all else is meaningless. Above all is the privilege of guaranteed membership of this United Kingdom and the assurance, which we have had from one side of the House and which I hope will be repeated later, that never again will the people be confronted with a Sunningdale-type condominium designed to erode if not to end that British citizenship.
If we the people of Northern Ireland are granted such assurances—and we ask no more and no less than the other citizens of the kingdom—there is no need to fear any further extra-parliamentary activities, and we can be certain that those elected to the Constitutional Convention can be relied upon to succeed where others have failed.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) received a good hearing for his speech which was moderate in tone, though I could not agree with all that he said. I recall having said in a previous debate that it was a pity that hon. Members from the United Ulster Unionist Party did not always receive a warm hearing for their speeches, and the reasons for this were based on things said elsewhere and sometimes the tone adopted here. I am glad to pay tribute to the hon. Member for the way in which he presented his case, even though I disagreed with him on the issue of the guarantee.
Now that this White Paper is before us, the Government have two clear objectives. The first must be to spell out the limits on the Constitutional Convention in terms of what is acceptable to Britain and what this Parliament is likely to accept. That must be said now to avoid confusion later. The second is to set and maintain the conditions in which the Convention can proceed and is likely to proceed along constructive lines. I refer first to the limits within which the Constitutional Convention is bound to have to work. These limits are clearly indicated in paragraph 45, in which certain facts are set out, facts which must be recognised in the Convention and which will be elaborated in further documents that the Government may make available to it.
Clearly, the first of these is power sharing. It is quite clear that neither of the communities in Northern Ireland represented in the Convention can be coerced into accepting the other's view, nor can either be ruled out of any future participation in Government. It has been made as clear as it can ever be made that the Protestant community in Northern Ireland has a guarantee that it will not be dispatched into a united Ireland against its will. I do not see how any British Government of any party can make that position any clearer. In so far as the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) went further than that, it was to indicate his personal view and that of his party that they ought to remain and that he would like

them always to remain. That is going further to the extent that it commits him and his hon. and right hon. Friends to a view about what the Protestant community should decide, but the important thing to that community, which is abundantly clear, is that they will not be sent into a united Ireland against their will. That assurance will no doubt have to be repeated many times, but it is clear.
However, for their part the Protestants must accept the right of Catholic participation in any future Government in Northern Ireland, and here I am glad to follow what the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham said. It is simply no use trotting out as some sort of shibboleth that someone who has aspirations towards the future development of a united Ireland is not a fit person to take part in Government. That cannot be used as a barrier to participation. The guide, as the right hon. Gentleman clearly said, is willingness to operate within the law. The only condition which can be placed on participation in the future Government of Northern Ireland is the same for Protestant and Catholic—willingness to operate within the laws and constitution of Northern Ireland for the time being. Whatever aspirations people may have about the future of the country in which they were born and in which they live is not the test. That must be accepted and recognised.
There is no clearer demonstration on the part of the Catholic community of willingness to work within these laws than the work of the SDLP members in the former Executive. Tributes have been paid to all the groups in this Executive; the SDLP members worked constructively and well for the good of Northern Ireland, of which they are citizens. That fact is a clear testimony to the right of future Catholic participation in Northern Ireland government.
The paragraph which sets out the facts which are to be recognised refers to acceptability to the United Kingdom and out of it has arisen the phrase "The British dimension". It is quite clear that this Parliament is not prepared to accept a return to a Stormont form of government, and whatever happy memories one community may have of that form of government, the memories of the other


community are very dismal indeed, and that is something of a legacy to answer for. There cannot be a return to a Stormont form of government. There must be protection of the rights of the minority community. It must be spelled out clearly that that form of government would not receive acceptance here and that any such government, if it were to be established, would not have the financial underpinning or enjoy the financial benefit on which those who are most keen on such a form of government depend. I am thinking particularly of those communities in Belfast which are dependent for work on the shipyards and which are looking to the British Government for continued confidence and investment in those yards. It must be made clear that the financial involvement of the British Government in Northern Ireland will depend on a system of Government that is acceptable over here in terms of its protection of minority rights.
The third feature in that famous paragraph 45 is the Irish dimension. I have already referred to the aspiration of members of the minority community and the attitude we should take towards it.
It seems to me that the important aspect of the Irish dimension for the North for the time being is that which is of immediate practical value to the North—namely, co-operation with the South on issues of mutual concern. The issue of border security has already been mentioned as one in which initiatives from the South will be welcome. I believe that initiatives from the North could reasonably be taken in a number of matters into which it would be difficult to read any sinister motive of backdoor moves to an immediate united Ireland. I am thinking of co-operation in such matters as agriculture and commerce, where fruitful relationships already exist between departments in Belfast and in Dublin, relationships which could proceed on the basis of considerable common interest and common ground into some institutional form, such as joint committees, committees which can deal with common problems. It would be difficult to read into such arrangements any sinister plans. They can be seen as desirable in the common interests of both North and South.
As long as we are in the EEC—which I suspect will be for all time, despite

the feelings of some Labour Members—the importance of such developments is even clearer. The degree of common interest between North and South within the EEC on agricultural matters, in some ways interests distinct from those of the rest of the United Kingdom, makes this clear.
I said that the other aspect was the need to set and maintain conditions in which the Convention would be enabled to proceed on constructive lines. The first thing which needs to be done in this respect, and which is obviously the target of much of the Government's work, is the allaying of everybody's fears, fears that a united Ireland will somehow be sprung on them, or that a return to Stormont is likely to be sprung on them.
It is almost unnecessary to state the importance of the security situation in creating the atmosphere in which the Convention will proceed, but I think that the question must be raised again, as it will be later tonight, as to how far the internment procedures are helping and how far they are hindering the security situation. I have a little less confidence than the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), whose expectations of what will happen at 10 o'clock go a long way. I recall asking the Minister in a Question how many detainees had been released since he first announced the scheme under which he hoped to develop resettlement provisions and sponsorship. None had been released up to the time I asked my Question last week. I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman's comments later.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Stanley Orme): We should clarify this point. I hope to explain the resettlement proposals and how resettlement will work when I wind up the debate, which I presume will be at some time after 9.30 p.m.—I do not think that there is anything special about 10 o'clock—and when the Emergency Provisions Order is debated.

Mr. Beith: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I think that he will recognise that if the ending of internment is to be seen as something really in prospect it will take more than a very limited release of half-a-dozen or a couple of dozen detainees to have the kind of impact one might seek.
We all recognise that the ending of internment over a short time scale would be a severe gamble for any British Government, but it is an option that must be considered at this juncture, in view of the depth of feeling of Catholic and Protestant communities. There is no group with a greater interest in the retention of internment than the Provisional IRA. No group has more cause to welcome its continuance, in that much of its support among the Catholic community owes a great deal to the existence of internment, with the family strains and dissatisfactions it creates.

Mr. Dalyell: What evidence has the hon. Gentleman for his last statement? Mr. Quigley and Mr. Morrell, spokesmen of the provisional IRA in Long Kesh, assured my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) and me that there would be no blood bath, that they wanted an end to internment and the start of a dialogue with the new forces in Ulster.

Mr. Beith: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is more ready than I to accept at face value what is said by the spokesmen for the Provisional IRA. My feeling, which is shared by many people in Northern Ireland, is that in internment the Provisional IRA has had a weapon in helping bring about the community's support it has enjoyed in some parts of the Province. It may well be that there are those in the Provisional IRA who are genuine in their desire both to end internment and to back its ending by a cessation of violence. I wish that I could share the hon. Gentleman's optimism.

Mr. Dalyell: I ask the hon. Gentleman a perfectly civil question—what was his evidence? It is no answer to be told that I am naïve and simple. If he asserts that the retention of internment suits the Provisional IRA, what evidence has the Liberal spokesman for that?

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman should look at those communities in which the Provisional IRA enjoys support, and the extent to which internment has been a factor in the attitude of families there, perhaps of families with members and friends interned, and the extent to which that builds up resentment against the

authorities and security forces. I do not wish to insult the hon. Gentleman in any way. He is wrong to suppose that I called him naïve. I said that he was optimistic. and I am not as optimistic as he is about what the attitude of the Provisional IRA would be if internment were ended.
A further aspect of the conditions under which the Convention must proceed concerns the electoral system. I back the intention in the White Paper that the electoral system used for the Convention will be that which was used for the Assembly, and the statement that it must be one capable of reflecting the views of the people of Northern Ireland, which the Westminster system has clearly failed to do. There is a possibility that there will be a Westminster election at about the same time as the Convention elections or immediately before or after them. I do not prejudge the Prime Minister's decision on that, but in any event there is likely to be at a fairly difficult moment.
Whatever happens to the electoral system in the whole of the United Kingdom, about which we have views, the Minister needs to look again at the Westminster electoral system in Northern Ireland. I know that I am asking him to consider what may appear to be a paradoxical course of action, but he is finding it impossible in his own speeches to support the Westminster electoral system and the way in which it works in Northern Ireland and the effects it has there. He may have to ask his right hon. Friend "Why do not we have a full-scale proportional representation experiment in Northern Ireland extending to Westminster elections as well?" Such an experiment should be combined with an increase in Northern Ireland representation here.
It should also be made clear at this stage that one of the conditions for the success of the Convention will be discussions extending far deeper into the community than those who stand as candidates for it, and that before election fever grips the Province and people find themselves taking sides, as they inevitably do at an election, it is desirable to encourage discussions at as many levels of the community as possible. If there are any ways in which the Government can encourage discussions at the level of the community forum within the indivdual town or area of a town on as wide a


scale as possible, that should be done. Whatever financial assistance can be given, should be given. Perhaps Church leaders can take an initiative. If the Government can assist in any way, they should do so.
I echo the feelings of hon. Members who have pointed out that in the meantime we must ensure that Northern Ireland legislation and orders are properly dealt with here. I must ask the Secretary of State not to reject the possibility of a Northern Ireland committee here simply because it seems to be a concession to those who were unwilling to operate the Assembly, where they had opportunities to deal with Northern Ireland legislation much more fully. It is not an argument against such a committee or anything else that it has those antecedents. Nor should the right hon. Gentleman fear that the creation of such a committee would be a precedent for the kind of machinery one might associate with full integration, for example. This is in no sense an argument against a Northern Ireland committee to deal with legislation as a temporary measure, to ensure that there is full treatment of Northern Ireland matters and to avoid the clogging of a legislative timetable which is already experiencing some difficulties. As a temporary measure it would command wide support in the House. We all hope that many of the matters which have been mentioned today and those with which we shall deal later tonight will be temporary measures on the way to a solution of the Northern Ireland problem.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: This is the most placid and good-tempered debate on Northern Ireland that I can remember. That is largely due to the good sense contained in the Secretary of State's speech and in the White Paper that he has produced. Before the last General Election many of the speeches that we heard from the then Opposition benches seemed to suggest that Labour hon. Members were looking forward to a headlong dash into unimpeded minority rule in Northern Ireland. Fortunately, the White Paper is more realistic and we can be assured that the voice of the majority will at least be heard. I am also pleased that there is a suggestion that the result of the Constitutional Con

vention will be put to the whole of the electorate of Northern Ireland in a referendum.

Mr. Orme: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not wish to misrepresent matters. When he talks about unimpeded progress to minority rule he will accept that in effect the Assembly and the Executive when elected represented a majority in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Goodhart: I accept that that was the position. I was referring to speeches made by the Minister's hon. Friends at an earlier stage. I do not think that the Minister ever subscribed to the view that was held by some of his hon. Friends.
I am glad that there is a possibility that we shall have a referendum on the result of the Constitutional Convention. Despite all the bombs and all the strikes, I still think that there is a moderate majority in Northern Ireland. Where there is turmoil it is important to demonstrate in as many ways as possible that the constitutional arrangements that have been made have the general support of those who are directly involved. Therefore, I hope that we shall come to a referendum.
I do not think that we can necessarily complain over-much about certain vaguenesses in the White Paper or about gaps in the Secretary of State's speech. Clearly there are no more gaps in this measure than in other measures. It seems that the vaguest reference of all is in paragraph 45(c), which says:
Northern Ireland, unlike the rest of the United Kingdom, shares a common land frontier and a special relationship with another country, the Republic of Ireland. Any political arrangements must recognise and provide for this special relationship. There is an Irish dimension.
That could mean anything or very nearly nothing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) was absolutely right to say that the question whether there is an Irish dimension depends to a large extent on the Dublin Government. Much depends on whether they are prepared to cooperate on issues that are of importance to the people in the North. If that were so co-operation would grow, but if the Dublin Government were not prepared to co-operate on certain matters such as security and the border, co-operation would wither and diminish.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The hon. Gentleman is right to quote paragraph 45(c), but it is right that I should tell him on what it is built. In the Constitution Act 1973 there is understandably no mention of the Irish dimension. That measure refers only to the concept that there may be co-operation. I discovered on going to Northern Ireland that the relationship that was built between the North and the South was left almost entirely to a discussion between the Executive and the South. I was told that Englishmen played little or no part in Sunningdale. I thought that that was good sense and that I could refer to the "Irish dimension" and leave the matter for Irishmen to determine themselves.

Mr. Goodhart: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his interesting intervention. I was also interested in the observation of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). He mentioned that Britain and the Republic of Ireland are members of the European Economic Community. It often strikes me as odd that those who are sometimes most anxious to see the greatest cooperation between Dublin and Belfast—indeed, a merger between them—are often those who are most anxious to see Britain leave the Community. I remember that the Minister of State was most vehement in his opposition to our entry into the Community. I wonder what will happen to the Irish dimension if the United Kingdom leaves the EEC and if the Republic of Ireland remains a member. What then will happen to the Irish dimension? I wonder whether the Government have any contingency plans in the event of that happening.
The part of the White Paper in which there is least clarity is understandably that which deals with security. It seems that security is the key to constitutional reform. Understandably the majority of people in Northern Ireland will continue to be infuriated if they are asked to accept a moderate constitution and moderate political methods and if at the same time the security forces maintain a low profile. In the course of the past five years we have seen one moderate Northern Ireland leader after another have the ground cut from under his feet because of our inability or unwillingness to press home more vigorously the fight against terrorism.
I hope that even before we get to the stage of elections to the Constitutional Convention we can do certain things in the security sector. Perhaps the highest priority ought to be given to conditions in the Maze Prison. In the course of the past five years some of the most dangerous men in Northern Ireland have spent a substantial portion of their time in that prison. It seems a wholly regrettable state of affairs that so often a man emerges from that prison as a greater danger to society as a whole than he was when he went in.
I would give highest priority also to recruiting more staff so that we can enforce the rule of law within our prisons and get on with the vital task of the rehabilitation of those who are there. We must also do more about the security of the border. I am sure that we cannot and should not seek to seal the border. It would be an impossibility. But we can and ought to cut down on a number of crossing points and we ought to do more to control those crossing points. At the same time we are now reaching the stage when we must soon consider the possibility of introducing identity documents, not just into Northern Ireland but into the whole of the United Kingdom.
Clearly documentation or control of the border will not do much good unless we have enough people in the Northern, Ireland security services. I was glad to hear the Minister of State say at Question Time the other day that he had held discussions with the Catholic community on the all-important issue of trying to get more Catholic recruits into the Royal Ulster Constabulary. But suppose, once again, this plea fails and the recruits do not come forward. How are we to provide adequate policing for the Catholic areas in Northern Ireland where we all know there is a substantial amount of intimidation on the part of the IRA?
I see that Dublin has announced the formation of a Home Guard for some towns and villages. I made many speeches during the passage of the Bill setting up the Ulster Defence Regiment. I am not sure that we have yet got the recruiting procedure for the UDR right or that we have got quite right the rôle in which we use the Regiment. I wonder whether, if recruitment does not improve


in the months ahead, we might not consider some new form of reserve with local service liabilities. I should like to hear more about the Government's thinking on how they would build up the security forces.
It must be right that the law-abiding majority in Northern Ireland should be given the means and encouragement to provide their own defence against terrorists. Whatever happens on the security side I am sure that we shall have many more debates on Northern Ireland in this House. I hope that at some time in the future the people of Northern Ireland will have adequate numerical representation here and that we shall not have over-large constituencies in Northern Ireland. This is the place in which the constitutional future of the people of Northern Ireland will be decided. The people of Northern Ireland ought to have their full voice here.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Julian Critchley: I sometimes feel that what Ireland suffers from is a surfeit of oratory. If only we could have a sabbatical, if only all the hard men who have become national figures on the "box" over the past five years could find refuge in mid-western universities for six months, how much better the situation would be. My only contribution to this plea for comparative silence will be to make a very brief speech.
I welcome the White Paper because it injects reality into a problem which has obstinately refused to yield to the politics of reason. Mr. Adlai Stevenson once said that the politics of reason were not enough. I think that followed his defeat in the 1956 election. Since when has politics ever been a rational activity? Sunningdale is dead and I, for one, refuse to wear mourning. The cold meats I shall leave to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. The Sunning-dale Agreement went too far, too fast. It was an exercise in railroading. It gave far too much to the viewpoint of the Republican, both in the North and in the South of Ireland.
The attempt to institutionalise the Irish dimension led inevitably and directly to the Ulster workers' strike. The White Paper is an attempt to persuade those who have recently exercised power to

show responsibility, an attempt to persuade the Ulster Workers' Council in particular—where the power resides—that it is its turn to exercise a degree of responsibility. If this is so, then it looks as if at last the problem is being returned to Ireland. The genius of the Lloyd George settlement after the First World War was that if the Irish were sufficiently irrational to practise murder in the pursuit of their political ideals, they should have the responsibility for it.
At least this is a gesture in that direction. The White Paper is wise, in that it makes only some recognition of the Irish dimension but at the same time places a lot of emphasis on the United Kingdom dimension. The White Paper makes all the proper noises about power sharing, but that is likely to come about only as the result of a concession by the majority community. It was always out of the question to force upon the majority a concept that ran against the reason for the existence of a Northern Ireland state.
I suggest that Her Majesty's Government ought to hold elections for the Constitutional Convention sooner rather than later—November rather than February of next year. I suspect that the argument for an election in November is strengthened by the imminent likelihood of an election for the Westminster Parliament in October this year. Her Majesty's Government ought to do the decent thing and, once a settlement is achieved, ought, as a quid pro quo, to see that the Irish have representation in this House in accordance with their numbers. My whole philosophy at the moment is "fewer Scots and more Irish". [Interruption.] I have the feeling that I am carrying a sizeable minority with me. We in the Conservative Party ought seriously to consider the two suggestions I have made to the Government—elections sooner rather than later, and the pledge to increase Ulster representation. I have no need to remind my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench that the Conservative Party stands in need of every friend it can get.
The path towards an eventual settlement has been eased by the lesson which the Ulster workers have administered to Republicans north and south of the border. A Constitutional Convention ought to incline both sides towards moderation. It should make the Loyalists


more likely to concede something on the sharing of power as the price for the United Kingdom economic subsidy, and might even incline Catholics in the Convention to moderate their demands for a united Ireland if only because of the fear of the consequence for them were Northern Ireland ever to achieve independence.
In conclusion, past policies have failed because they have foundered upon an unresolved conflict of allegiance. The proposals of the White Paper may yet succeed. Indeed, any agreement reached by the Convention will be very gratefully received by this House. What we are not certain of is how many people within the Convention itself have to agree before "agreement" is achieved. Were this last attempt at a constitutional convention to fail, then at last we would reach those two final "Stations of the Cross" of the Irish problem—the choice between independence and integration.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: I had not intended to speak at any length on this White Paper because there is not a lot in it to discuss. If my remarks are a little too lengthy it will be because of the intervention that we have just heard by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley). I resent bitterly—I am certain that this may be felt, to some extent, by some of my opponents in Northern Ireland—the patronising attitude he adopted in speaking of Irish affairs.

Mr. Julian Critchley: That is not true.

Mr. Fitt: He told us how irrational the Irish are—

Mr. Critchley: And they are.

Mr. Fitt: —and said that they are unable to cope with their own problems. At the weekend at Oxford, when the noble Lord, Lord Longford was introducing the meeting of the British-Irish Society, he showed us a number of busts in the hall and told us they were busts of eminent Englishmen, all of whom had tried in some way to solve the Irish problem. Since I fell out of the cradle I have heard about all the Englishmen who have tried to solve the Irish problem. I have yet to hear about the bunch who started it. There will be many in Northern Ireland who will resent the hon.

Member's patronising attitude. He spoke of law and order—

Mr. Critchley: I did not mention it.

Mr. Fitt: Well, the hon. Member mentioned the security forces and said that they should have the support of the whole community. We have heard that time and again from Conservative speakers. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would be interested to know that had it not been for the downfall of the Executive there would now be in Northern Ireland an institution which would enable the two communities, Protestant and Catholic, to identify with a new police authority. The downfall of the Executive brought the downfall of the setting up of that authority.

Mr. John Carson: Mr. John Carson (Belfast, North) rose—

Mr. Fitt: I have no intention of giving way to the hon. Member because I have found repeatedly that when I am speaking he intervenes. I have yet to hear him make a maiden speech in this House. If he wishes to make any contribution to this debate he can make it.

Captain Orr: The fact that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) was absent during my hon. Friend's excellent and telling maiden speech is no excuse for not giving way to him.

Mr. Fitt: I regret not having been here to hear that, and I am most anxious to hear the hon. Member make another contribution. In relation to the police authority, the Catholic community, through its elected representatives, was trying desperately to set up an institution which would allow the minority community to identify with the police service in Northern Ireland and so create confidence and trust in that police service, so that the Army could be taken away from the streets of Derry and the more sensitive areas of the city of Belfast.

Mr. Carson: I ask the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) whether he can say that the Executive in Northern Ireland, of which he was a member, could have been assured that every part of Northern Ireland and the streets of Belfast would have been policed by that police authority? Was it not rejected by the Provisional IRA, so that certain parts of Belfast would never have accepted it?


Will the hon. Member give the House an assurance that all Northern Ireland and every street in Belfast would have been policed by that force?

Mr. Fitt: I have never claimed the right to speak on behalf of the Provisional IRA. I have at all times condemned it for the activities in which it is and has been engaged throughout this whole confrontation. I am saying that the elected representatives of the minority—the Provisional IRA did not have a single vote cast for it at the ballot box—were in full agreement with the other members of the Executive. We had agreed to enter into discussions with the Irish Government, in the hope that they would be able to bring about a police authority, and through that authority a police force which would have been acceptable to everyone in Northern Ireland. I am certain that had the Executive lasted another two or three weeks that police authority would have been in existence.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State believes that he is going to give us some information tonight on the release of internees. I repeat what I have said on many occasions before: internment is, has been and will continue to be one of the most serious and divisive issues in Northern Ireland until it is brought to a complete end. In the negotiations which took place at Sunningdale the British Government said that they would bring about further releases if the security position allowed them to do so. In the discussions we had with the then Conservative Government, we said that not only must releases be dictated by the security situation but that there must also be political interests involved—and so the Conservative Government, to their credit, immediately after Sunningdale released 60 or 65 internees. I protested at that time, and most of my colleagues supported me vehemently. We thought that the number was far too small. Since then, no releases have been made by the Conservative Government up to 28th February or by the succeeding Labour Government who were then elected.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The releases were made by the commissioners.

Mr. Fitt: The releases were certainly made by the commissioners and not by the Secretary of State himself, but I can only

tell my right hon. Friend, from the same side of the House, that if he thinks his announcement tonight that seven people are to be released will go any way towards lessening the tension in Northern Ireland he has another think coming. Seven is a derisory figure and it will certainly not go any way towards pleasing anyone who is in any way involved in the internment problem—and that goes for both communities. I do not yet know the religion of the seven who are to be released—whether they are Loyalists or on the Republican side—but if the whole seven were either Loyalists or on the Republican side the figure would still be derisory. It will be treated with the contempt it deserves, because it does not even begin to attack the very burning issues that are raised by internment.

Mr. Orme: I assure my hon. Friend that the releases are representative of both communities, and they are the beginning. My right hon. Friend has said that there will be more. It will not be seven and no more. My right hon. Friend has in mind a number who will be released progessively over the coming weeks.

Mr. Fitt: I repeat that the derisory number of seven will not be acceptable to anyone who is involved with the problem of internment. I have been told by my right hon. Friend that there may be another seven, but will they be released tomorrow, next week, or next year? Will the Government ask for a further extension of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act for six months, and at the end of that period will they ask for a further extension?
When the 65 internees were released at Christmas, we thought that that was the beginning, and that there would be more releases in January, February and March. But there were no further releases, except for the internees who were released by the commissioners. I am not telling my right hon. Friends something of which they are not completely aware. Day in and day out representations are made to them by representatives of both communities about the problems of internment. I am not telling my right hon. Friends anything they do not know, although there may be other hon. Members who are not completely aware of the divisive nature of internment.
I recognise that if one wants to remain friends with one's colleagues there are times when one is expected not to say certain things. On the other hand, as an elected public representative it is my bounden duty to speak on behalf of my constituents and of what affects them in their everyday life. I know that I shall have no support for what I say from hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches who represent Northern Ireland constituencies, but I have had forceful representations made to me that certain members of the Ulster Defence Regiment are no credit to that force. I am not condemning the force out of hand and saying that every member of it is a miscreant, but my right hon. Friends have received deputation after deputation concerning the activities of certain members of the UDR.
It may be that certain members of the UDR do not like members of the SDLP, members of the minority community or former members of the B Specials but, whatever the reason, time and again representations are made to me from people living in the rural areas—not in Belfast—particularly in areas west of the Bann.

Captain Orr: The UDR is one of the most vital and important security services. The hon. Gentleman is making general allegations, and he says that he has taken these allegations to the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman should be specific. What is he alleging? Who are the persons against whom the allegations are made? One cannot allow those allegations to stand in so vague a manner on the record.

Mr. Fitt: I was not a member of the deputation which went to see the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend, but many of my colleagues were. They are the people who live west of the Bann who are affected.

Captain Orr: If the hon. Gentleman is advancing this argument before the House of Commons he must know what were the allegations and he must know the names of the people against whom allegations were made.

Mr. Fitt: One allegation, which may not seem to be very serious, was about the harassment that is meted out by

members of the UDR who are concerned with traffic security. They appear to allow one person or 10 persons to go by but to keep a particular person of a different political or religious persuasion for hours at the block. That has happened time and again.

Mr. Molyneaux: If it is any comfort to the hon. Gentleman, I have been stopped by the Army and by the UDR patrols at road blocks. On several occations I have been asked to remove my jacket and place my arms on top of the car while I was frisked. During that time up to a dozen cars were waved through. This is not an exclusively SDLP matter.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: A delegation has visited my right hon. Friend and made allegations about the UDR similar to those which have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), and which I suppose can loosely be called allegations of harassment. Several names have been mentioned, because everyone seems to know everyone else in Northern Ireland. These allegations are being investigated because names have been given to us.
I hope that my hon. Friend will make clear that although the allegations are important they do not involve deaths. My hon. Friend's remarks may be taken out of context unless we put that right.

Mr. Fitt: I thought that I was being very fair. I did not lay great stress on this matter. I said that only a few members of the UDR may be affected. I did not condemn the whole force for being engaged in this activity.
It is necessary to get the confidence and trust of the community in the security forces. If certain people are acting in a way which is likely to reduce that trust and confidence, it is right that that should be mentioned in the House and elsewhere, so that such activity can be brought to an end. I want the security forces throughout Ireland—the Army and the police—to receive the full confidence and support of the whole community. No one can say that I have at any time supported those who are engaged in the commission of violence.
Apart from one paragraph the White Paper is a history lesson. It may be a lesson for people who live in other parts


of the United Kingdom, but it is a lesson that we in Northern Ireland do not have to be taught. We have experienced the bombs and the killings and we have attended the funerals. The sentiments which are expressed in the White Paper are vague in many aspects. Paragraph 45(a) contains the following words:
There must be some form of power-sharing and partnership.
What exactly does that mean? I know what I regard as power sharing and what I would be prepared to accept as power sharing. I and members of my political party would not be prepared to take up a minor position, such as that of chairman of a committee, and regard it as power sharing. It has been conceded, even by right-wing Conservatives when in Government, that the Ministers who were appointed to deal with commerce, housing, health and social services proved that they were capable of administering those services on behalf of the whole community in Northern Ireland. They would not be prepared to accept minor positions.
I come now to the Irish dimension. It has been said that one cannot legislate for a man's opinion or a man's conscience. There are thousands of people who believe that in some way, some day, sooner rather than later, Ireland will be united by the consent of all the people—that no coercion will be necessary and that no violence will ever achieve that end. It is difficult to gauge accurately the real opinion or conscience of an individual and, therefore, no one can tell exactly how many people hold that opinion. But there are many who believe that people who live north and south of the border will come together and begin to govern their own country.
One cannot penalise people for having that legitimate ideal. I have that ideal. I hope that sooner or later, by consent and not by violence, I shall see Ireland united into a 32-county republic. I have never believed that to love Ireland one has to hate England. The islands of Northern Ireland and Great Britain are so situated geographically that the two countries must co-operate with each other, particularly in today's fast-changing world. The two peoples must live in peace, amity, concord.
This must be understood: the vast majority of the people in Ireland bear no animosity towards the people of Great Britain. For example, when a football team from Great Britain is engaged in an international competition the Irish people suffer the same disappointment as those in the United Kingdom if that team is beaten.
The term "Republican" can be very offensive to the Unionist representatives from Northern Ireland. Others do not find it offensive. They wait to see the formation of a united Ireland one day, brought about by consent and not by coercion.
We are told by the leader of the official Unionist Party that he will not serve in government or agree to share power with Republicans, meaning the Roman Catholics.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: Will the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) help us by saying when the leader of the Unionist Party made that statement?

Mr. Fitt: On numerous occasions he has said that he is not prepared to share power with the SDLP because they are Republicans, and not because they are Roman Catholics. He said he would be able to share power with Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland who were loyal to the Constitution. That means loyal to his interpretation of the Constitution.
The SDLP members of the last Executive were loyal to the Constitution Act 1973 as it exists today in Northern Ireland. Can any further loyalty be demanded of anyone in Northern Ireland?
The interpretation of the pronouncements of the leaders of the official Unionist Party is that they are not prepared to share power even in the long term. The path is now set for a collision between those in Northern Ireland who maintain that attitude and the present United Kingdom Government or, after the next election, perhaps the Conservatives. That collision course will still be there.
The Government and the Opposition insist that there must be power sharing in Northern Ireland, that there must be partnership in government, that there must


be an Irish dimension. We share the views expounded in Northern Ireland that that is not possible. This is leading to a headlong political confrontation between the political parties in Britain and those who are proving to be so intransigent in Northern Ireland.
The SDLP will in the future try to bring about community consensus politics in Northern Ireland. We are dedicated to taking every political step we can to bring the communities together in Northern Ireland. We cannot be expected to sell out our every ideal and aspiration in an attempt to bring about this co-operation.
By spelling out the financial relationships which exist between Great Britain and Northern Ireland the British Government can point out to the majority in Northern Ireland, particularly through Part 5 of the White Paper, the very real effects of the maintenance of their present attitude of total confrontation with the British Government.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I do not intend to make any comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) except to deplore the smear he made on the Ulster Defence Regiment. We are conscious of the number of members of that gallant force who have sacrificed their lives for the community.
I accept what the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) said when he welcomed the moderate way in which this debate has progressed. That is a good sign. He repeated what the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) said—that Members of this House representing Great Britain constituencies ought to approach discussions on Northern. Ireland with a sense of humility. That is why I deplored the Prime Minister's television speech dealing with the Ulster strike, which, to say the least, did not pour oil on troubled waters.
The Prime Minister has a deep and abiding hatred of the Ulster majority. Because of that, he is blind to certain aspects of the Ulster problem. His dislike of the Ulster majority is shared by some other members of the Labour Party. I ask the Labour Party to bear in mind

that the Ulster people have now endured five years of a vicious nightmare.

Mr. John Mendelson: At a time when everybody is appealing to the various forces directly involved to adopt a responsible attitude the hon. Gentleman ought to withdraw the nonsensical remark concerning the alleged abiding hatred of the Prime Minister for the majority in Ulster. What conceivable prejudice could lead him to believe that what is there in the background, in the make-up or in the general attitudes, philosophical and religious, of the Prime Minister could lead to that abiding hatred? It is nonsense. The hon. Gentleman should withdraw that remark.

Mr. Kilfedder: I do not withdraw the remark. Anyone who heard the Prime Minister broadcasting on the strike, even without listening to his other speeches made in this House and outside, will realise that he dislikes the Ulster majority.
Dealing with what the Liberal spokesman—the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—said about the need to provide a committee upstairs to discuss legislation before draft orders were put before the House, I raised this matter last week. I hope the Secretary of State will pay attention to that request. We need an opportunity to debate and suggest amendments before draft orders are laid before the House. It is grossly unfair—this matter is referred to in the White Paper—to a hard-working community, and the height of political impertinence, to imply criticism of the Ulster community because revenue falls short of expenditure.
The whole of the United Kingdom is subsidised by the International Monetary Fund. If the economic position becomes any worse we shall be looking across the channel to the Common Market to get the nation out of its financial difficulties. That is the plight the whole country is in. The White Paper does a simple arithmetical exercise. It adds up the revenue arising from taxation levied in Northern Ireland, it totals the expenditure and subtracts one from the other. It then comes to the conclusion that the difference is the subsidy paid by London for the upkeep of Northern Ireland. No account is taken of the fact that Ulster has the highest gross domestic output of all the


regions in the United Kingdom. No account is taken of the fact that the output per acre of Ulster farms is higher than elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
The White Paper completely ignores the contribution that industry and agriculture make to the total wealth of the entire country. Northern Ireland industry makes a bigger contribution per worker, to Great Britain's exports than workers in Great Britain itself. We have a high output at a cheap rate—far too cheap a rate—from Ulster's 35,000 small farms, which helps to keep down the cost of food for the English housewife. All this should be borne in mind when people castigate Northern Ireland.
The people of Ulster have performed an economic miracle in the face of incredible destruction. While transforming the country economically, they have had to contend with a vicious urban guerrilla campaign, aimed at destroying the whole community. The violent upheaval has not been confined to Northern Ireland; it is part of a pattern that we have witnessed throughout the western democratic world. I should not like to think that any other part of the United Kingdom would have to endure what the people of Belfast and the towns and villages of Ulster have had to suffer. Democracy and freedom will not be saved except by resolute action against terrorists.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West referred to detention, and spoke of only 65 internees being released before Christmas. Ten of those 65 have been detained again for very good reasons. We cannot just get rid of detention; it is essential. The Army has told me in all my conversations with it that it cannot operate in Northern Ireland if internment is taken away. The abolition of internment would mean that detainees would be able to go out and train others or engage in terrorist activities themselves. Although as I have always said, I intensely dislike internment, it is necessary in the circumstances. We should consider how to improve the circumstances of those in the Maze Prison. That would help the situation.
The White Paper introduces a new dimension by insisting on the right of the Ulster people to help to devise their own constitution. This is a unique development in the United Kingdom and should

attract the attention of the Scottish people. No doubt they will be looking for a constitutional convention in due course. Parliament is saying to the people, "We have failed; now you must try." I welcome the view in the White Paper that the people must participate in the making of their own constitution.
However, a convention of 78 members is not likely to be sufficiently representative of opinion. A constitution which would weld opposing communities together will not be achieved just through 78 members, and certainly will not be achieved overnight. If the Government are genuine and sincere in their desire for a broad spectrum of opinion to be represented in the convention—as I accept they are—at least 150 representatives will be needed. I notice the Minister shaking his head in disagreement with me, but the more people we have at that convention the better it will be for Northern Ireland in the long run.
If the concept in the White Paper is not to turn sour or become stale, the elections will have to be held quickly. Delay plays into the hands of the terrorists. The gunmen want no constitution of any sort. They do not want the country to succeed, social conditions to be improved, or a real political dialogue to begin.
The longer the Government delay elections to a convention the more the initiative will pass to the terrorists and the greater the permanent damage to civilised standards of behaviour. There is always the danger that the longer the delay the more politicians of every party will adopt a stance from which they will not easily be able to depart.

Mr. Orme: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's views, but is he aware that the Government are under extreme pressure from Protestant organisations and leading representatives of that community to delay elections for a considerable time? When I conclude the debate I shall give the names of people who have approached us on this matter.

Mr. Kilfedder: I accept what the Minister says, and look forward to his speech. However, I believe that the great majority of people in Northern Ireland want elections, and want them now. But this is a difference of opinion: it is a question of the number of people the


Minister has spoken to, and the weight they carry.
How practical would it be to hold a referendum on the findings of the Convention? By its very nature, a constitution is complex. What questions would be put in the referendum? What would people be asked to decide on? Who would advise on the questions? Would it be the members of the Convention, the Secretary of State, or Parliament? I hope that the Minister will deal with these questions.
Of course, a referendum will mean further delay and will provide additional opportunity for the men of violence to plague the community. It will prolong the uncertainty, with no noticeable gain except for those who wish to see the continuation of disruption and who gain from chaos. I hope that the Government will reconsider this matter. Although I was against the Common Market, I voted against the holding of a referendum because that is not the way to settle such matters. There is no convincing argument in support of a referendum in the White Paper.
If the Government do not greatly increase the number of members in the Convention, what would be the purpose of dismissing the Convention and holding further elections to a Northern Ireland Assembly? If the number is restricted to 78, would there not be sense in the constitution-makers having to work the constitution which they had produced? The arrangements and agreements and the respect which would have grown up during the discussions would help to ease the path of the constitution-makers in their new rôle as legislators.
It will not be easy. We all realise the problems that lie ahead. I certainly welcome the proposal to allow Ulster men and women the major rôle in devising their own system of government in the United Kingdom. But the fundamental commitment of the majority in Ulster is to British citizenship and the maintenance of the Union. Protestants and Roman Catholics in Ulster can live together as citizens of the United Kingdom. Idle talk of an independent Ulster is unrealistic and harmful to the true interests of the Ulster people. Naturally, it worries Roman Catholic members of the community, and that disturbs me. As

an Irishman who is proud of his British nationality and who has no intention of rejecting that nationality, I reject utterly the notion of an independent Northern Ireland.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) made a notable contribution to the debate. I refer particularly to his clear statement that the Conservative Party wants Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom. Our people in Northern Ireland will take note of his remarks.
I shall not delay the House any longer, since I know that many other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. I close by saying that we should all make a fresh start, without recrimination. Let us say that here is an opportunity to see whether we can devise some system which will be acceptable to the majority and to the minority and will make Northern Ireland both peaceful and prosperous. Also, let the Irish Republic realise that its best contribution to a settlement in Northern Ireland is by dealing with the terrorists who seek sanctuary in the Republic. Let them shut down the agencies in the Republic which operate as recruiting centres for the terrorists and which collect money for the evil purposes of those terrorists.
Security is essential to peace in Northern Ireland. The urban guerrillas and anarchists are to meet in Belfast and Dublin. If they can meet in that way—I hope that they are not allowed to meet in Belfast—Her Majesty's Government should also be able to compare notes with other countries which suffer from terrorist activity and see how best to resolve the problem and to deal effectively with the terrorists, so that they can be destroyed.
I welcome the White Paper, with its proposal for a constitutional convention, and hope that it will produce a constitution that is acceptable to the House.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Nick Budgen: I welcome the White Paper because it is based on two sound and enduring principles—first, the principle of a power-sharing Executive and, secondly the belief that any sort of arrangement must be worked out by the people of Ulster themselves.
I believe that it was wise to concentrate on those two principles and to forget or discard many of the principles which, unhappily, were added to the Sunningdale concept. The concept of power sharing is the one concept that has survived from Sunningdale. It was working in the Executive, and I wholeheartedly agree with the last two sentences of paragraph 26 of the White Paper, which say:
Yet, if the Executive failed, the men who served in it did not fail. They disproved for ever the idea that it is not possible for Protestant and Roman Catholic to work together for the good of Northern Ireland and its people.
I believe that the concept of power sharing is acceptable ultimately to the Protestants. They may not like the concept at present, but since other concepts have been shorn from the Sunning-dale proposals it may well be that they will ultimately accept the idea of power sharing. I believe that for the Roman Catholics of Ulster the concept of power sharing is the minimum condition for their consent and co-operation. The people of the remainder of the United Kingdom demand power sharing as the minimum condition of fairness for the minority of the people of Ulster. It may be that power sharing is the price the Unionists will have to pay if they wish to remain in the United Kingdom.
I welcome the White Paper because it proposes that future constitutional arrangements should be worked out by the people of Ulster with as little interference as possible from the people in the remainder of the United Kingdom. Statesman after statesman has gone out from England to Northern Ireland believing that he or she can solve the problems of Ireland. In recent years we have seen three of the most notable of our English politicians go out from this Chamber to Northern Ireland. I leave aside those who are currently engaged in this problem. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) brought courage, integrity and the bluff common sense of the English and Welsh bobby, and he failed. He was followed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling), who brought to bear a Rolls-Royce mind—lucid, far-seeing and objective—and he failed. Then came my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. White

law). He brought to the situation the jovial charm and courage of the patrician paternalist. At one stage we thought that he had succeeded, but he, too, failed.
Each of these men brought great and diverse talents to these intractable prolems, but we must recognise that neither the English nor the Welsh understand the gut reactions of the people of Ulster. More important, there is a practical point to be made. This may well be the last chance for the people of Ulster to work out their own solution. They must never be put in a position in which they can say at a later stage, "We were interfered with; it is somebody else's fault because we have not worked out a solution." This must be their responsibility, and they must not be in a position to blame any other person or any other nation if they fail to work out their own solution.
Many of my colleagues on the Opposition benches would argue that the concept of power sharing may not work out. They may be right. I believe, however, that one more wholehearted attempt to work out a power sharing Executive must be made—and it must be made by the people of Ulster. But the people of Ulster must realise the alternatives if they cannot work out some sort of arrangement among themselves. I believe that the alternatives are too horrifying to contemplate with any honesty. There are only two logical alternatives—integration, or independence. Attached to both alternatives are horrifying disadvantages.
When we examine the proposals for integration, we discover that the arguments are morally right. I believe that it would be morally wrong lightly to wash our hands of what is essentially a British problem and a British obligation. Nor do I believe that we in this country should lightly forget the defence advantages to us of the Ulster connection, and the unique position which Ulster holds in relation to our own part of the United Kingdom. But, most of all, I believe that we should consider carefully the solution of integration, because we owe a deep obligation to the silent, moderate, unsung men of Ulster who have turned to us in the last five years in the firm belief that we shall help them achieve a solution which is at once honourable and decent. But we must face the fact that if we try the solution of integration


there are substantial disadvantages—and those disadvantages should be known to the Ulster people. Many of my hon. Friends who are present in the House at the moment have deep reservations on the question whether they want integration.
There are many on the Protestant side of the divide in Ulster who are uncertain whether they want any further integration with the United Kingdom. It must be realised that those who want a continuance of the Protestant ascendancy are unlikely to get it if they have any closer integration with this country—and if the Catholics have integration with this country it must be admitted that that would bid a final farewell to their hopes of achieving a united Ireland by peaceful and democratic means of persuasion.
There is no certainty that integration will bring an end to violence. It is certain, however, that if that violence continues it will not be directed merely towards Belfast and Londonderry; it will be logically directed to those who hold the power over Ulster. It will be directed towards Westminster, towards Birmingham, and even towards Wolverhampton. Such attacks upon the English people may occur at a time when England is at last preoccupied with the menace of inflation, when we have the worst recession in living memory, and high unemployment, and when the English people are unhappily inward-looking and not too concerned with what is happening in Ulster.
It is my fear that if we are ultimately forced to choose the alternative of trying to achieve integration between England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the time may come when the unhappy people of England and Scotland, preoccupied with their own internal problems, will say that they are unprepared to continue the debilitating commitment to Ulster. I would not want to see the English or Scottish people take up that position. It would be a profoundly humiliating position, but the people of Ulster ought to know that there is a possibility of that arising.
The second alternative to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) points to is that of independence. The possibilities there are even more horrifying. Independence

could occur only after the English and Scottish troops have been withdrawn, and one thing is certain—that that would be followed by a blood bath. There would then be an attempt by the Protestants to impose a permanent Protestant ascendency, and no one can doubt that that would provoke a severe reaction from the strong minority of those who wish to achieve a united Ireland, whether by violence or by democratic means.
There is a possibility—which is by no means remote and which was, I am sure, in the minds of the politicians of the Republic in their debate of 26th June—that if we pulled out of Northern Ireland and went for independence there would be a war in the whole of Ireland, in which the Republic would be ultimately involved.
There is the further deep constitutional point that if we were to give independence to Northern Ireland it would be a most unfortunate precedent and would be harmful to the whole concept of the integrity of the United Kingdom and to our national standing in the councils of the world. It would be seen almost as a humiliating display of a lack of resolve, as, for instance, occurred when the Belgians left the Congo.
Most of all, we ought to bear in mind that pulling out—certainly pulling out precipitously—could have a most harmful effect on the Army. The Army would wonder what it had done for so many years; what purpose there had been in so much loss of life, and in the misery which it had had to endure in Ulster. We should also bear in mind that one of the saddest things that might come about is that if, at the time it was ordered out of Ulster, the Army happened to be particularly disenchanted with the politicians, and if, as many of us believe, over the next few years we see our democratic institutions seriously undermined by inflation and the failure of the politicians to tell the people the truth, the exit of the Army from Ulster might be the beginning both of the rule of the colonels and of disenchantment between the Army and the politicians.

Mr. Mendelson: Nonsense.

Mr. Budgen: I hope that it is nonsense. We have always believed that what happened in the Weimar Republic could never happen here. We have always


believed that we could not have a 25 per cent. inflation rate. I hope that all these things are purely hypothetical. All I am saying is that I hope that the very unpleasant alternatives of either independence or integration never come about, and I hope with my whole heart, as I am sure all the people of England do, that the people of Ulster will be able to sit down and work out their own solution. All that we in England can ask is that they should know the alternatives, and that they should sit down with a genuine attempt to work out a solution.
For the time being we should ask them one thing: if we are to begin to phase out internment in any way we should invite them to respect the law, particularly in cases where they know of acts of violence. Let us be assured that if internment is phased out and people whom the Army know to be murderers, but whom cannot be proved to be murderers, are seen again in the streets of Belfast and Derry, it will be deeply offensive to the Army. There would be pressures towards increasing internment and detention, but we all want to see internment phased out. It is a deeply offensive system to anyone with any concept of the freedom of the individual and of justice under the law. But if the people of Northern Ireland do not support the law, I ask, rhetorically, what other alternatve is there? Let them first of all support the law, and let them give the Convention their wholehearted support.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: I realise that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) is well-meaning in wishing to encourage those who will be elected to the Constitutional Convention, should it work. There will be general agreement that that is a good purpose. But the hon. Gentleman must avoid painting an apocalyptic picture, based on no evidence, in order to produce this desirable encouragement of the future members of the Convention. There is no prospect of unemployment being higher than ever before. If the hon. Gentleman remembers his economic history, he will recall that we reached the unfortunate unemployment figure of 3 million in 1932 and 1933. Moreover, Ministers have learnt their Keynes since then in other countries and in this coun

try, and there are encouraging signs that the American economy is strong and that the changeover from production for the war in Indo-China to peaceful production is going on apace, as any recent visitor to the United States will realise.
With regard to difficulties facing us, I am confident that members of the Government are preparing essential measures which will be introduced to the House if there is a danger of more unemployment. Keynes has not lived in vain, and it is slightly ironic that a lifelong Socialist such as myself should have to reassure the Opposition that the economic system under which we live is not at death's door. None the less, I give that reassurance, and I give it especially to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.
Turning to the main purpose of the debate, there is one other reason why we should consider these matters rather calmly and not make exaggerated appeals about "last chances". Anyone who has followed the history of Northern Ireland knows that that is futile. It is the task of the Government, of Parliament and of the people who are elected now and who will be elected in the future in Northern Ireland to go on working steadily at the job in hand without any talk of last chances, of final failures, or of anything of the kind. It is the task of the Government to go on doing their work, facing the difficulties which arise, knowing that new difficulties will arise, and building upon what achievements we can score as we go along.
One reason why the present administration of this country and the one immediately preceding it will have a good place in history, despite their failure so far to make lasting permanent improvements visible in Northern Ireland, is that the spirit in which they have approached the problem is that of the steady working man who wants to do a practical job. For that, they deserve the support of this House.
I take issue with the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), in whose speech I found a number of features with which I agreed, over his denunciation of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Hon. Members know that I do not normally act as the Prime Minister's air raid shelter. But it is extremely unhelpful politically in the present situation for such


nonsensical denunciations to reach HANSARD and perhaps to be reproduced in the Press in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, as inevitably the speeches in this debate will be reproduced.
There is nothing in the evidence—in the make-up, in the past attitude or in the present attitude of the Prime Minister—that justifies remotely any accusation that he is full of hatred of the majority in Ulster. We have only to recall that it was the present Prime Minister who co-operated most closely with successive Prime Ministers of Northern Ireland in the past—not only Mr. Faulkner but the one preceding him, Mr. Chichester-Clark, who is now a Member of the other place. No one worked more closely with the Prime Ministers of the majority in Ulster than the present Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. They have worked together, and they have not succeeded, but surely that does not show evidence of hatred of the majority in Ulster.
Moreover, it is not a representative attitude that the hon. Member for Down, North has introduced into this House today. Anyone who has visited the Province recently and talked to many people representing the majority in Ulster will have found that they do not have that in mind at all. They are critical of a speech which the Prime Minister made. In that, we are all in the same class. Who has not at some time been critical of a speech made by the Prime Minister? I plead guilty straight away, and I am sure that I shall do so again in the future. But that does not mean that my right hon. Friend is imbued with hatred.
It is recognised on all sides in the Province that what is becoming clear in the present situation is that this Government, like their predecessors, are making an honest attempt to encourage the people of Northern Ireland themselves to find a solution. That seems to be the present position, and it is one that we can all support. We only weaken our support for this objective if we exaggerate the attitude of people, Governments or policies.
I sought permission to intervene in this debate because I wished to draw attention to two main matters. The first of them concerns the period between now and the elections for a Constitutional

Convention. I did not expect it in advance of going to Ulster recently, but I found that people on all sides of the political spectrum were not urging the Government to hold the elections at the earliest possible date. I know that this is controversial, but there are a number of people among the majority, some of them holding fairly extreme views on other matters—and if I mentioned their names hon. Members would immediately recognise the force of what I say—who have told me that a time for reflection is needed, that time is needed for recruitment, that time is needed for those who might want to put forward candidates rather than having the assumption made that they will necessarily put forward those already sitting in the House of Commons representing them. They want time for reflection and recruitment. Therefore, a certain amount of delay will not do any harm. Indeed, it may do some good.
On the minority side, I have also found that people are interested in an opportunity to work out policies and ideas. But I think that it is far more important in this context that it is members of the majority who are in favour of delay than those among these other groupings. We are talking about limited delay. We are not talking about years. We are also talking about an attitude, which I found firmly expressed, of not wishing to hurry the Government into having these elections within the next few months.
The second matter which I wish to raise concerns internment. Here again, I was surprised to find among a considerable number of people, including senior police officers, a degree of scepticism about the usefulness of internment. Again I did not expect that. The view is held more and more widely in the Province that the way in which people live together for long periods of internment breeds the kind of atmosphere which is dangerous and unhealthy for the public life of Northern Ireland and for the purposes of the community at large. Therefore, more and more people are in favour of ending the policy of internment.
This is a new fact. It is a fact which is all the more interesting because it is a view backed by people in highly responsible positions who have no political axe to grind. This kind of view is bound to make an impact upon my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government.
That brings me to the next matter to which I want to refer. I chide the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West in a friendly way for taking it upon himself to interpret the view of the Army in the way that he tried to do. There is a great deal of talk in this country at present about relations between military leaders and political leaders for which there can be no real evidence as regards our troops in Northern Ireland.
I do not claim to be in touch with all those who hold command in the British Army. My own position in the Army during the war was far too lowly to have made the contacts necessary for me to be able to claim to be in touch with those who are now general officers commanding in various parts of the United Kingdom. But on my recent visit to Northern Ireland, I met practically all the commanding officers of the battalions stationed in the Belfast area, and I was profoundly impressed by the clear understanding of the facts of the situation, not only in military and security terms but in other respects, of what is happening in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Budgen: I must make it clear that my gloomy projection of what might happen if we took the Army out of Northern Ireland was not based on evidence. I have not spoken to people in the Army. I merely projected the view that a Weimar-type situation could happen in this country with a total breakdown of the economic system. I am not suggesting that I know an individual officer who has put himself forward as the future Hitler.

Mr. Mendelson: I am glad to hear that. It was the kind of withdrawal that I hoped to elicit from the hon. Gentleman. I can now leave that matter.
Some of the policies now being considered by those who hope to be candidates in a Constitutional Convention election have begun to produce a new realisation that people who have not for a long time contemplated sitting down together to work out new political arrangements for the Province must now do so. This is a new and positive fact. I do not want to exaggerate it, because amongst the same people are many who, almost in the same breath, are saying, "But I cannot possibly do political work with so-and-so. I find it difficult to think

that I might work out arrangements it so-and-so is included."
The exclusiveness of people against each other still operates, as it has been operating for many years. What is new is that among people of extreme views there are a number who say, "We shall have to make the attempt to sit down together and work out joint proposals that we can accept for the life of the Province".
It is my firm conviction that what emerged from the previous two-day debate on Northern Ireland has done some good in the Province. Quite a number of people felt after that debate that their interests and attitudes had been taken seriously. Hon. Members on both sides, not only in the debate but in their conduct outside, are making a determined effort to understand the attitudes, views, fears and convictions of both the majority and the minority in Northern Ireland. A suspicion had grown that Members of Parliament were not taking enough trouble to improve their understanding of the situation and to gain the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland. That suspicion has passed. Now many more hon. Members are conducting themselves in such a way that the people of the Province may be reassured.
That may be one of the real contributions to be made by this House between now and when the Constitutional Convention election takes place. I think that the people of Ulster will also regard it as helpful if we attempt to discuss this matter together as we are doing.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: I think that my colleagues from Northern Ireland would agree that we should give the White Paper a cautious welcome. There is also a great degree of welcome for the comments made by the official Opposition spokesman the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) who, in the most overt terms, stated a desire by the British Government to retain unity with the people of Northern Ireland.
I think that we should also welcome what might be called the deliberate vagueness in the White Paper regarding the future. It is wise that a document of this kind should be indicative rather than definitive. Therefore, we welcome this vague document, because it affords


the people of Northern Ireland the opportunity to discuss the problem most closely affecting them.
We in Ireland have constantly been reminded by the Government, particularly by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, that we must face realities. However, it is obvious that the right hon. Gentleman selects the realities that the Government are prepared to face.
In stating that there must be power sharing and an Irish dimension, the Secretary of State has obviously discarded two realities of political life in Northern Ireland. The first is that power sharing in government is not acceptable to the majority of people in Northern Ireland. The General Election on 28th February clearly demonstrated that point. The fact that 60 per cent. of the people in Northern Ireland returned anti-Sunningdale candidates as Members of this honourable House is a clear indication that power sharing, as conceived by the Government, is a non-starter in Ulster. I say that power sharing is a non-starter not because it was rejected on 28th February, but because it institutionalises discrimination in stating that the minority must always have a say in government. This is a dangerous statement to make in a democracy.

Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman said that the election on 28th February was about power sharing in Northern Ireland. I understood that it was basically about Sunningdale and the Council of Ireland and that there was a wide measure of support for power sharing as such.

Mr. Bradford: I am delighted to have the opportunity of clearing the Minister's thinking on this issue. It was about not only the Sunningdale issue but power sharing. I think that this matter will be made very clear in the United Ulster Unionist Party's manifesto at the next General Election.
I want to return to the point about institutionalising discrimination. To insist that a minority must have an automatic part in government is a most dangerous argument to introduce into a democracy, because there will be no control over the demeanour and complexion that that minority might adopt at any given time in future. We may find the minority accepting, adopting and implementing a political philosophy which would be

dangerous in the extreme to the British community as a whole. Therefore, I warn the House to be careful about institutionalising discrimination.
The second reality that the House is not prepared to recognise is the rejection of the Irish dimension. The Unionist Blue Paper clearly stated the kind of agreements and co-operation which might exist between the Government of the South and Northern Ireland. They include tourism and arrangements for the production of power. These are acceptable to the United Ulster Unionists and to the Ulster people as a whole. But we have stated time and again that we will not accept any political secretariat which includes politicians from Southern Ireland.
It has been said that because of our geographical situation, because the North shares the same island as the South, we have a common boundary and that, because of that common boundary, we must in some way come to a special political agreement and arrangement. I suggest that that is nonsense. It is nonsense in the light of the fact that this situation obtains in Europe where countries share common boundaries. However, those countries do not share or, indeed, impose upon each other a sovereign authority or control.
In the White Paper there is a statement to the effect that the Southern Government now recognise Northern Ireland in a way which they have not done since the inception of Northern Ireland. That is simply not true. It is correct to say that Mr. Cosgrave, in a recent statement, recognised the existence of Northern Ireland de facto. But that is one particular kind of recognition. It is not the kind of recognition upon which we in Northern Ireland insist. The kind of recognition upon which we insist is a de jure recognition. A de facto recognition is simply the statement that Northern Ireland, as six counties, exists. That is meaningless, and it is useless in the present political situation. What we want is a clear, unequivocal recognition of our right to exist as part of the United Kingdom. That has not been forthcoming. It is not in existence now. I doubt whether it will ever come in the future.
It is said in reply to this kind of argument that the Southern Government has


a written constitution. This is a golden and very real opportunity for the South to prove how much it cares about violence in the North and about peace in the North of Ireland.
I want now to deal with the possible delay in bringing the new Convention into being in Northern Ireland. Many speakers in the debate have stated that a delay would encourage the IRA. Whether or not we all accept that, the fact today is that the IRA has declared a new onslaught, a new term of violence, upon the people of Northern Ireland. Therefore, it seems that there needs to be real stability in the Province in the light of this new threat and impending onslaught If we had a Convention under way, particularly dealing with the security aspect, this would deter the terrorists and would most certainly encourage the people of Northern Ireland to hang on and to see this dreadful period of anarchy through.
In that light, although we need the Convention inaugurated we also need immediate measures on security. I suggest that we need almost immediately five battalions of full-time soldiers in the Ulster Defence Regiment and 20 battalions of part-time soldiers in that regiment. We also need a Home Guard. We need this force to release the Army to do the kind of work which only the Army is equipped to do.
I conclude by offering some words of warning about the loose use of language when we discuss Northern Ireland. We have heard time and again this afternoon that we would love to see Protestants and Roman Catholics working together in government. I suggest that this is very dangerous talk and very inaccurate talk, because Protestants and Roman Catholics have worked together in the past. If we mean Republicans and Unionists, let us stick to those terms and use them.
The term "Protestant ascendancy" has also been used. By this there has been the insinuation that the Protestants have wanted to control the Province to the detriment of Roman Catholics. That is simply not true. If there has been a Protestant ascendancy in the past, it is only because Protestants have endeavoured to retain at all costs the British link. If our sin is the determination to remain British, I am prepared to

accept the stain, the smear and the slight of a Protestant ascendancy. We have been prepared to retain this link. We very much want to retain it, and we have been prepared to be maimed, bombed and killed. I ask this honourable House whether the people of Britain are prepared to suffer even a little in order that Britain might stand by us now, helping us to claim only what is ours—our British and United Kingdom citizenship.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: However much one may regret the fact that we are having to debate this White Paper today—and I regret it—we must face the fact that this is a moment of reality for us and, perhaps, the most realistic chance of a new start in Northern Ireland that has occurred in the last five years. It is a new start. I agree very much with the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), who said that it will probably not be the last step that we shall have to take, although I hope that it will be a long stride forward in the history of Northern Ireland.
I want to comment briefly on the three main subparagraphs of paragraph 45 of the White Paper. Power sharing has been agreed by both parties as clearly the best chance that we can see for a solution in the North. I welcome it generally. I very much regret the words that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford). I hope that they were not his last thoughts on this problem. Surely we can accept that power sharing can come in many forms. All that one asks the Convention to do is to approach the matter by looking for a solution which involves a realistic form of power sharing. I should have thought that from the Ulster Protestant point of view, if it could be achieved, that would be in many ways the greatest step it could take to safeguard the one thing which the hon. Member for Belfast, South was asking to be safeguarded above all—his United Kingdom citizenship and his relationship with this House and this country.
We are one. No one suggests for a moment that we are other than that. But if we are to remain one, in the North there has to be realism. I have no doubt that the one thing which can break the Convention is a refusal to accept that


there must be some realistic form of power sharing in the North of Ireland. It need not take the form which was imposed at Sunningdale. I use the word "imposed" because it did not have the general consent of all of them. Not everyone was asked. However, that is all water under the bridge. We are starting again now. Everyone will be asked and everyone will get a chance to be elected. Every aspect and viewpoint will have its chance to be voiced in the Convention. In that Convention I hope that there will be this realistic approach. There must be give and take.

Mr. William van Straubenzee: I am sure that my hon. Friend would want to be absolutely accurate. He is right about the invitations to the Sunningdale Conference itself, but he will recall, as he studies these matters so closely, that all parties had the opportunity of taking part in the earlier constitutional talks.

Mr. Miscampbell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That was simply a passing remark. It is all water under the bridge. I am sure that we would all do best to forget what happened at either Darlington or Sunningdale. I do not blame anyone. I supported the initiative at Darlington. I supported Sunningdale wholeheartedly. I regret what happened. However, I am merely facing the present position.
When the Convention looks at these matters it will have to arrange its affairs, if it is to have power sharing, so as to give reality to two things. There cannot again be a position in which one party can unilaterally, by simply saying "We are going", create a veto over the Executive. That is a concession which will clearly have to come from the SDLP. Perhaps it will also come from the Unionists side—using that word broadly.
On the other side the test is as it was put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour). He suggested that the test was that, be the person concerned Catholic or Protestant, is he prepared at this time to work the constitution?
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) put this carefully. We cannot

realistically ask people who hold the views that he holds—and we all know that a third of the population potentially may hold those views—to give up their aspirations. They are being asked to work with people whose aspiration is a permanent relationship with this country. Both have their ideas about the long-term future. Surely both can accept that and work within the present. The total rejection of these Catholic politicians is unsuitable, for it would seem to me to go ill with the frequent claim, which can be shown statistically to be true, that a substantial minority of the Catholic population votes for unionism in referenda. It can clearly be seen because in the border poll it was not possible to attribute the result to the Protestant population alone. There is always an undercurrent on this question which supports the border. It would seem to be well within the interests of those who hold unionist views that those different views in the Catholic community should be supported.
I agree with the tone of many speeches about the special relationship, and I recognise that this would be a sacrifice that the SDLP would have to make. The special relationship must be recognised, but it must be earned in help from the Southern Government. The debate in the Dail last month was briefly reported in our Press. I see that the main speeches were extremely helpful, but some of the back benches had a quite different view about what should be the relationship between the North and the South. That is the type of propaganda in the South that must be watched and curbed, and the South must help itself.
The White Paper rightly says that any final solution has to be acceptable to the United Kingdom Government, and that is quite understandable. After all, we provide the finance and the force. It is our troops which in large measure, though not exclusively, keep the peace, or attempt to do so, in Northern Ireland. We must ask—whether it is elected in November or in February—whether the Convention, left to itself, will come to a realistic and acceptable arrangement with the British Government, taking no part save an advisory one. This seems to me to be a very real problem. We cannot adopt the solution of a mediæval conclave when electing a Pope when, after six months, they took the roof off. That would


hardly do if there were a conclave at Stormont. In the end they stopped giving them food in mediæval times—

Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Member is painting a dangerous picture.

Mr. Miscampbell: It is probably a solution which would appeal to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), but be that as it may, we must consider whether the Convention would produce an acceptable solution if left to itself. I hope that it would, but there is a very real British dimension in this and we must remember the terms under which the Convention will meet. It will be elected, and it then has six months in which, week by week, the Members will go back to their constituents to report on progress, and here they must carry their constituency parties with them. I fear that unless the reality of what Britain will accept is put to them in the Convention so that they fully understand their position the usual practice of Northern Irish politics may persist and we shall find that at the end of six months nothing has happened. Of course, we could extend the Convention, but that is not a very hopeful prospect.
I know that I cannot change the Government's mind on this, and I fully understand why they have chosen their course of action. It is attractive for a British Government in the present impasse to tell Northern Ireland to sort out its own affairs. Just before we start on this new voyage, interesting though it may be, I wonder whether we do not need a captain in charge of the Convention, whether it would not be a good idea to have representatives in there, not people who can vote, not people of authority but perhaps a Minister of State, or even perhaps, the Secretary of State himself, who could offer guidance.
I have one last message for the 12 Ulster Members in this House. They are probably the only representatives with the elected authority between now and February, or even possibly November, to speak for Northern Ireland. They seem to me to have a great burden and a great duty upon their shoulders because too little in Northern Ireland and in the Press is there painted as a broad picture, and too much is there portrayed as a narrow and partisan scene.
Surely it is possible in the next six months to refrain from taking up inflexible positions, because that holds no possibility for real negotiation. It is no use a Member going to his electorate out in Antrim or Down or Fermanagh and saying that he will not accept certain things under any circumstances, because that would make the election of an Convention a complete waste of time.
I make that appeal especially strongly this evening because from this side of the House there has been a clear indication that broad sections of the Conservative Party hope that the union could continue. I believe that if Northern Ireland could work out for itself a respectable and socially just form of political life, that desire for the union to continue would by no means be confined to these benches. There is wide support on both sides of the House which would show itself if the North could solve its problems.
The solution of those problems would be made impossible if people began adopting positions which subsequently they could not get out of. Flexibility has not been a great characteristic of Ulstermen, but surely the chance they now have is too great to lose by inflexibility. Let us go into the Convention with everything to play for and with open minds. That is Ulster's best hope.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Carol Mather: Perhaps I may qualify one remark made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Miscampbell) when he talked about power sharing. The people who will share power must believe in that power. They must believe in the responsibility which they are sharing. Otherwise, it will be very difficult for power sharing to work. I believe that there is a general recognition on all sides that power sharing must happen if there is to be any solution to the problem of Northern Ireland. If some sections of the community adamantly set their faces against the kind of situation which is envisaged, or against the union, I think that power sharing will be difficult to achieve.
One thing that is missing from the White Paper is the British dimension, as the Secretary of State said. The matter is not raised in the White Paper. Britain's interest in Northern Ireland is not made clear, and never has been made clear by


any recent Government. I do not believe that it can simply be left to the people of Northern Ireland to maintain the union so long as that is their wish, as decided by the referendum every 10 years.
It is up to this country to say what it wants—to say whether Northern Ireland is important to it. Until we have made that clear, it will be difficult for us to be convincing about Northern Ireland. If we had made it clear earlier we should have avoided much of the Protestant backlash.
I turn to the finance section of the White Paper. I do not believe that one can deal with finance purely on a cost analysis basis. The invisible benefits to Britain have been left out of the calculations. One cannot simply judge them on pounds, shillings and pence. First, the strategic importance of Northern Ireland to Britain as part of the United Kingdom has not been considered. The geographical importance of Northern Ireland in guarding the Western Approaches to Britain, which were so important during the last war, has not been mentioned, nor has the fact that there are airfields, ports and harbours which could be extremely useful to this country, if not essential, if there were another Battle of the Atlantic. I do not know how one would calculate the value of the land mass which guards this country to the west if it were to be maintained on a lend-lease basis.
There is also a very valuable reservoir of manpower in Northern Ireland, which made a great contribution during the war, with men coming forward to fight with the forces of the United Kingdom as a whole. Moreover, Northern Ireland threw up a remarkable number of wartime leaders.
We also leave out of the picture the fact that until the recent events the working force of Northern Ireland had a very good strike record, and productivity has also been good. I believe that until the troubles broke out the record of Northern Ireland as a whole, as a law-abiding country, was better than any in Europe. All those factors must be set in the balance when the financial calculations are made.
The majority population in Northern Ireland should be pleased with the proposals in the White Paper. In fact, the proposals have already been given a

cautious welcome. They have achieved the main objective of having a new election for the Assembly or for whatever body is to succeed it. But we must all deplore the fact that that has been achieved by means of a political strike. The example set in this country a few months ago, of what a political strike could do, was followed in Northern Ireland, and we must deplore that.
I see no insuperable obstacle to increased representation at Westminster. We must wait for the outcome of the Convention to see what the new form of constitution will be in Northern Ireland. But it would be a great advantage if the Secretary of State would declare in principle that Northern Ireland will have fair representation in this House. That would do a great deal to clear the air. The Assembly, or whatever is to succeed it. has already lost functions that it had under the Government of Ireland Act 1920. These important matters will now be decided in this House, and there should be increased representation here.
We must realise that, whatever constitutional changes that are in Northern Ireland, terrorism is what we must deal with first. It must be given priority above all else. First, we must win the psychological battle against the terrorists. We must make them and everyone else understand clearly that we are in this business to win it, and that we shall win it in the end.
Secondly, in order to do that and to relieve our hard-pressed troops in Northern Ireland, we must enlist the aid of the people of Northern Ireland. I do not believe that we can defeat terrorism until we do.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. Wm. Ross: I rise once more to speak not only for the people of my constituency but, I think, for the people of all Northern Ireland. As I look at the serried ranks on both sides of the House. I think that we all realise the depth of the concern shown by the House for the horror of Ulster. The House saw the 1973 Act as a realistic way forward. It may have seemed realistic here, but it was not realistic in Northern Ireland. That is why that Act is dead and buried, and will never see resurrection day.
We are told that the Convention may discuss the police and not the Army. All that the people of Northern Ireland have ever asked in security matters is that the police be the front line of defence against terrorism. That is the basic reason for having a police force in any nation—to protect the law-abiding citizen from the law breaker. We cannot expect any police force to have the support of law breakers, whether they call themselves nationalists, IRA, freedom fighters or whatever. They are still law breakers; they live by terror and are out to break the law, to upset the normal standards of behaviour in the community in which they exist. They exist for no other reason than to destroy the present order and replace it with something of their own making.
We ask the Army not to be policemen but to support the civil power in restoring law and order. Whatever the cost of that may be, I believe that it will always be much cheaper than allowing anarchy and bloody murder to continue. We were told, as we usually are told in every debate in the House, about the sectarian murder of Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland, the inference being that only Roman Catholics are victims of the sectarian murders and assassinations. When I heard that today I was thoroughly disgusted, and once more I checked the figures. From 1972, 166 Roman Catholics have died from the assassin's activities. Eighty-three Protestants, two Muslims—they were both tea boys in the British Army—and one German—the police did not know his religion—have also died. It is evident from those figures that the assassin's bullet can strike at any place when the assassin thinks that he is doing good for his cause. What good murder has ever done for any cause I cannot tell.
Further, 729 civilians have died. Were they not assassinated principally by the murderers of the IRA? Practically all of them died as a result of IRA activity. Practically all of them were the victims of the assassins and murderers who set out to destroy the community in which they lived. In addition, approximately 12,000 people have been injured. We have not been told that 90 per cent. of the businesses in Londonderry that have been destroyed belonged to Protestants. They alone are the people who have

suffered. Perhaps I am going too far in saying that. I have known Roman Catholic business men and farmers who have suffered. But let the House be clear that it is the Protestant community at every level that has suffered the greatest amount of damage, arson, murder and intimidation from the thugs and murderers that stalk our land.
We are told today, as usual, that we must support the police. I have always done so in their fight against the terrorists. However, the police are people who are attacked on every occasion by every man who wishes to break the law in every community. When there is support for the police in their rôle of keeping law and order in the community, that support must be without any qualification; it must be wholehearted. Support must come from the heart of every man and woman. There must be no drawing back, and no quibbling. There must be 100 per cent. support for the police, and the police must be defended in the actions that they are forced to take.
We are told about the security that is required for minorities. I think that hon. Members will realise from what I have said and from their own knowledge of the situation that there is a majority in Ulster which consists of people who require, above all, protection against the IRA. In saying that I am not forgetting that the activities of the IRA have probably borne more heavily upon the people in the Bogside, in the Creggan and Shan-tallow than on any other section of the community. Indeed, only a fortnight ago the people of Strabane had their town taken over for eight hours by the IRA. The IRA carried out armed patrols through a housing estate in Strabane and the Army directed traffic through Donegal and Lifford to get into their home town. These are matters that are not forgotten and they are not easily or lightly forgiven.
We are told that security is necessary. There is no man who will deny that. But how are we to get security? That is a question that must be solved quickly. We are calling in Northern Ireland for a Home Guard who will live among the community and who will be able to deal with murder wherever it may be found. That Home Guard could be raised quickly, and in a realistic manner. It should have a broad base and strong


support throughout the community. It could act not only as a Home Guard but as an intelligence gatherer. It could be a force that would be a major component in the restoration of law and order in the community.
We are told that we should join the RUC Reserve or the UDR. There are many men in the community who wish to play their part and who for various reasons cannot do so. We must never forget that there are many people in the community who are denied the right to serve their country. I was such a person, and yet I made it to this House. I was taken into the UDR and then discharged as being unsuitable after 28 days, yet I made it here. It will be seen that the people of Londonderry did not share the opinion of the Army commanders and their political masters as to my suitability to defend the people of Londonderry or to defend my Province of Ulster. I defended it as a member of the Ulster Special Constabulary, and until the day I die that is a fact of which I shall be inordinately proud. I think that that constabulary was one of the finest forces that ever walked the roads of this Kingdom. It was prepared to defend that land, and it defended it well for 50 years.
The Government are responsible in any province and in any country for the State's existence. That is one of the basic reasons for a Government's existence—namely, to ensure that the State continues to exist and to see that the people who live in a tract of land or on an island have the right to live their lives as the majority sees fit. Therefore, they must defend the status quo and the political existence of the State at every level.
I believe that it is impossible to take into the Government men who believe that the State should not exist. That is not to say that we will not share power, but I believe that we can never share government with those whose primary objective, in whatever way we look upon the word "primary" or in which ever context it is used, is a united Ireland. I believe that when the SDLP is willing to allow the Unionist Party to sit in on its meetings when it is discussing how it will get rid of Northern Ireland by bringing it into a united Ireland, we may consider the SDLP sitting in on the Government of Northern Ireland.
I now turn to the future. We must as is laid down in the White Paper and in the Bill that will be put before us, have an Assembly election. Such an election should be concerned with the anomalies that exist in the representation of various constituencies in Northern Ireland. We should try to level off the numbers that are needed to elect a Member in the various constituencies. That could easily be done by having three additional Members.
I call attention once more to the position which those from Northern Ireland find in this House. The average number of electors per constituency in England is 65,000. For Scotland I think the average is 50,000 and it is roughly the same for Wales. Of the six largest constituencies, three are from Northern Ireland—namely, Antrim, North; Antrim, South; and Down, North. If we considered the seven largest constituencies I believe that Londonderry would be included. The smallest constituencies in the United Kingdom are in Scotland and Central London and, I think, in Newcastle. These matters should be considered. if there is to be representation in this House from the United Kingdom that representation should at the least be the same throughout the country. Failing that, representation should be the same for the areas taken on their own merits. These are matters that cannot be treated lightly because they can alter the balance of power in this House and the political realities of life.
There is no reason for not making changes simply because a Government do not like what is going to come out of an election after boundary changes. Indeed, not to make them would be a direct negation of democracy, which would bring not only the Government of the day but this House into disrepute.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Harry West: I welcome the opportunity of saying a few words about this White Paper. May I take up the point about under-representation, dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), who quoted figures for constituencies in England, Scotland and Wales. If he will forgive my saying so, he was a little low in those figures. Nevertheless, there is a vast


difference, on average, between the number of constituents represented by one Member of Parliament from Scotland and the number represented by one Member from Northern Ireland. The figures I have show that on average each of the 71 Scottish Members represents 73,000 people. On average each of the 12 Members for Northern Ireland represents 128,000 people. This is unfair representation for Northern Ireland.
We are under-represented. I have said before that it is unfortunate that at this critical stage in the history of Northern Ireland and of the United Kingdom we should be discussing these serious matters when our community is so badly underrepresented. That is not the only way in which we are under-represented. There are constituencies in the North of Ireland arranged for the Assembly elections at Stormont which are similarly underrepresented. I refer particularly to the constituencies of Antrim, North; Antrim, South, and Fermanagh and South Tyrone.
Of the 12 constituencies in Northern Ireland, nine contain an average of 13,000 voters per Member. In the Antrim, North constituency there are almost 15,000 voters per Member. Antrim, South is much the same and in Fermanagh and South Tyrone there are almost 14,500 voters per Member. To be fair to the Members in those constituencies, there should be at least one extra Member to bring the figures up to a proper representation in Stormont.
We hope to introduce an amendment to the Schedule of the Bill next Monday and to have an opportunity of debating it. We have a suspicion that there was a good reason for arranging the figures in Northern Ireland in this way. In fairness, I must say that there has been a great shift of population in recent times, principally because of the troubles. Because of this we feel that in the three constituencies I have mentioned, where the figures show that there is not the same representation as in the other nine, there should be one extra Member appointed for the Assembly or whatever institution of government is selected for Northern Ireland in future.
We are greatly troubled by the question of defence in Northern Ireland. I do not want to dwell on this because

we have talked a lot about it already. We value the work done by the security forces in Northern Ireland. We find that there appears to be some interference from the political side, which is of course denied by both Front Benches. There is, nevertheless, the problem that in Northern Ireland security is not up to the standard it should be. As citizens of Northern Ireland we still have to sit back and watch that country being destroyed and people being maimed and killed. Some may claim that there is an easing of terrorist activity. It is fair to say that this has become so common there that a lot of it does not even make the news—a tragic circumstance.

Mr. McNamara: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the lives of my constituents are at risk in Northern Ireland at present. He has said that there has been political interference with the rôle of the security forces and that they are not able to carry out their task. He said that this had been done by both Front Benches. Can he give specific examples when either my right hon. Friend or the two previous Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland in the Conservative administration interfered so that people were killed or maimed or property was damaged?

Mr. West: The hon. Member has hardly quoted me correctly when he said that I accused both Front Benches. I said that both Front Benches denied political interference. Admittedly it amounts to the same thing. Several senior Army officers have come out in public and made this point from their practical experience of service in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McNamara: Who?

Mr. Merlyn Rees: As this is my responsibility, I defy the right hon. Gentleman to say which senior Army officers have said this. It is important, when troops from this country are serving in Northern Ireland. I can think of three or four occasions when the right hon. Gentleman has come to me and asked me to interfere politically in a security matter in his own area. He knows that. I have refused to do so. I must insist that he gives the names of the senior Army officers who have said this.

Mr. West: This is a most peculiar accusation. I do not recall going to the right hon. Gentleman in his office and asking him to interfere in a security matter. Will he give the information?

Mr. Rees: Yes. On four occasions the right hon. Gentleman has been to me asking me to provide security for him and I have said that I will not interfere politically, that I will do so only on the advice of security advisers. I will not interfere in Northern Ireland in these matters. It is a security advisory matter. On each occasion the right hon. Gentleman has been back asking me to give my instructions. I do not interfere in security matters in this way. The right hon. Gentleman must know the names of the senior officers who are supposed to have disagreed with me. We must have the names. It is important to British troops.

Mr. West: I give the names of General Walker and Lord Richard Cecil. The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong, however. It is untrue to say that I went to him to ask for security protection for myself. The requests for my protection did not come at my insistence. I was present on a number of occasions when requests were made on my behalf by a number of my colleagues, two of whom are sitting on this bench tonight. Never have I made a request to the right hon. Gentleman. He should withdraw.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Would the right hon. Member not agree that the leaders of every other party in the Assembly receive protection, including parties far beneath the size of the right hon. Member's party? Is it not a fact that the local police in the right hon. Member's area have advised that his wife and family and the right hon. Member himself were as much entitled to protection as the leaders of the Alliance Party, the SDLP, or my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) the leader of the Vanguard Party or myself? Will the right hon. Member ask the Secretary of State why it is that he is the only leader of any party in Northern Ireland—regardless of threats that have been made on his family which are substantiated by the police—who does not receive protection?

Mr. West: That does not worry me as much as does the misrepresentation of

my conduct by the Secretary of State. He has said that I went to him on four occasions asking for protection. This is not true. I have never been to him asking for protection for myself. He should withdraw that remark. It is wrong for him to make that accusation.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: We must get this clear. The right hon. Gentleman said that senior Army officers—

Mr. West: That is not the point.

Mr. Rees: It is. He said that senior Army officers had disagreed with me. He has offered the name of a captain who appears to have had a view on this.
I asked the right hon. Gentleman for the names of people who had served in Ireland who could give chapter and verse on my having interfered politically. He has not given them. I then told him that on these matters of security for politicians in Northern Ireland I do not decide. It is a matter for security. I am not prepared to interfere politically.
But he must give the names of these people who have served in Northern Ireland who have told him of this, because it is not true of this administration—and I am convinced that it is not true of the previous administration. It is part of the tommyrot that passes for discussion on security matters.

Mr. West: I must again ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he still holds the view that I went to him on four occasions in his office in Belfast asking for protection for myself. Is that true or not?

Mr. Rees: On four occasions, and maybe more, the right hon. Gentleman has been in a deputation to see me on various matters when the subject has been raised on his behalf. On one occasion at least when he was there he put the case to me. I am not prepared to interfere in this matter. It must be a matter for the security people. Politicians must not get involved in it, and that is what the right hon. Gentleman is asking me to do.

Mr. West: We have now heard the truth, and the truth is that I did not make direct representations to the right hon. Gentleman for security for myself, as he tried to convey to the House a few minutes. That was quite untrue.

Mr. McNamara: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Now that he has finished his little dialogue with my right hon. Friend, would he be kind enough to answer the questions I asked? Which incidents, which occasions, who has been injured or maimed, which property has been damaged, as a result of political interference from either Front Bench? Will he please let us know? It is important.

Mr. West: We have heard quite a lot from the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, about the cost of the bomb damage. All that is a result of terrorist activities there which we feel could have been curtailed in Northern Ireland. I have already given the names of two Army officers who have spoken publicly on the matter. There are a number of others who do not want their names mentioned because they are serving officers in the Army, and the House can very well understand that they do not want to be involved in this. I believe that I have now successfully defended myself against untrue accusations coming from the Secretary of State.

Mr. McNamara: if the right hon. Gentleman will not give us the names, will he give us details of the victims and places where direct political interference has resulted in loss of life or damage to property? If he will not give names, will he give us those details?

Mr. West: It is a little ridiculous to ask that. The whole picture in Northern Ireland is one of disaster because of terrorist activities. I do not make a habit of listing each item of destruction and every person killed or maimed, but it is public knowledge that this has happened. I do not keep records of such things.

Mr. McNamara: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I must come back on this point. He has spoken of political interference from the two Front Benches. He has refused to name officers who have spoken of this. Will he now let us know of occasions on which people were killed or maimed or property damaged as a direct result of political intereference? If he cannot do so he must withdraw that very wild accusation. He has to do so.

Mr. West: I suppose the hon. Gentleman is right to come to the rescue of his right hon. Friends on the Front Bench. Of course he defends the right hon. Gentleman, but these things have happened. [HON. MEMBERS: "There is no evidence."] I say there is. I live in the community. All those who live in Northern Ireland know this to be correct. I will not waste any more time on the point. On this question of security generally, what worries us a lot is the continuation of the destruction that has been going on for the last five years. A country that was built up by your forefathers in Northern Ireland as a happy, prosperous little country, one of the best in Europe, if not further afield, is still being destroyed by terrorist activities.
We firmly believe that local people in Northern Ireland should be given a greater opportunity of participating in the defence of that country. In the 1939–45 period, whenever our country was under attack—admittedly on a limited scale—from German bombers and the danger of invasion, though the danger and destruction at that time were nothing like they are today in Northern Ireland, we were allowed to establish our Home Guard to defend our homes, our territory and our families. A much better case exists today for the establishment of a Home Guard in Northern Ireland to keep terrorists at bay. I cannot for the life of me see why the present British Government, and the former British Government also, should have turned their minds against this request. It seems sensible. We have put the case to the Secretary of State but as yet we have had no favourable reply.
A further point I wish to raise concerns finance, with which I am sure the Secretary of State will deal when he is presenting the Bill next Monday. He has already promised that he will go into financial matters. I hope that in presenting the financial benefits that Northern Ireland gets through being a member within the United Kingdom he will give all the facts, and that when he gives the visible benefits coming from direct taxation he will make an effort at presenting the benefits which accrue to the British economy through indirect taxation of various kinds. I am sure those figures are available and we, and the general public, would expect him to give them, in producing all the


facts, and not to present a one-sided picture.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State has disappeared, probably to cool off, because I wanted to raise one other matter with him. I will delay saying what I had wished to say in case he comes back.

Rev. Ian Paisley: He will not come back.

Mr. West: It is most unfortunate that even today in this House in talking of the two sections of the community we have had mention of Protestants and Catholics. I have said before in this House that the trouble in Northern Ireland does not arise between Catholics and Protestants as such but because a majority of people there want to remain within the United Kingdom and the minority want to go into a United Ireland. It so happens that in the main the people who want to remain within the United Kingdom are Protestants and the bulk of the minority are Roman Catholics. But it is not a religious row. The trouble arises because of the different aspirations of those two sections of the community.
That brings me to the vexed question of power sharing. The phrase "power sharing" has been used loosely in the community. Most people regard power sharing as requiring the minority to be included in the Government or Cabinet in Northern Ireland. There are other ways of sharing power. In this House the Leader of the Opposition has considerable power, although he has not a seat in the Cabinet. We humble people from Northern Ireland—11 of us—have considerable power if we want to use it. We have the balance of power, given the opportunity to use it. We have had that opportunity on several occasions and have not used it. Members who serve in a Parliament can have power although they have not a seat in the Executive or Cabinet.
We have said publicly that we are prepared to approve an administration with majority rule because that is the British system, and we are British citizens, part of the United Kingdom. We are prepared to approve majority rule, whichever party comes out as the majority party after the election. In addition we are prepared to facilitate the minority party by a system

of strong committees to supervise administration and to initiate legislation.

Mr. McNamara: If the right hon. Gentleman's party is not in the majority but is a minority against a coalition, would be accept a coalition?

Mr. West: Yes.

Mr. McNamara: Then why did he not do it last time?

Mr. West: The last exercise was a gerrymandered Executive that proved distasteful to all democrats in the country. That was one reason why we did not accept it and would have nothing to do with it. We would not give it credibility because it was gerrymandered and was not established on the British parliamentary system.
It is unrealistic to expect people to serve in a Cabinet when they have aspirations so diametrically opposed to each other as had the members of the Cabinet of the last administration in Northern Ireland. In the Executive there were Unionist members whose aspirations were to remain within the United Kingdom. Serving with them were colleagues whose aspirations were the destruction of the constitution of Northern Ireland and uniting the country. It is unrealistic to expect a minority with that type of aspiration to work loyally in a Cabinet for the long-term interests of Northern Ireland and its people. That is the fault we find in this so-called power sharing exercise that has been so loosely spoken of. If a similar situation arose, for instance, in Scotland or Wales, the British Parliament would not impose conditions on the Scottish and Welsh people. It dare not do so.
A story has been put abroad in the community that Northern Ireland does not want an early election. That is untrue. My colleagues and I mix freely with the electorate from one end of the country to the other, and we are in a position to judge the temper of the people. They are looking for an early election and it is false to think that we can put off the election to the Constitutional Convention in the hope that the previous administration may regain its credibility in the community.
If we want Northern Ireland to be restored to a peaceful condition, we must


have an early election to the Constitutional Convention, so that we can sit round the table with properly elected members to work out our own future. I assure the House with all the sincerity I can command, and on behalf of my colleagues, that if we are given this opportunity to sit down with the newly-elected Ulster representatives in Stormont we shall do our best to arrive at a just and fair solution to our problems and to restore a peaceful and just society.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. William Craig: One cannot talk of the serried ranks of hon. Members listening to the debate, but one can at least pay tribute to the quality of the contributions that have been made and the sincerity of all hon. Members. It would be churlish of me not to pay tribute to the Secretary of State for his sincerity and realism, and that goes for the Government, too. I do not often find myself in the position of paying such a tribute, but we recognise that the Government and the Secretary of State have faced the problems honestly and squarely.
We hope that the opportunity given us will result in a step forward. I liked the right hon. Gentleman's sensible approach—that what we are doing now need not be construed as the last chance for Northern Ireland. One should take that sort of attitude so as not to prejudice the operation from the beginning. The Minister is right in saying that it is an important chance. I hope, as we take this chance, that we in Ulster and Members of this House will realise that in this sort of situation one must have respect for the will of the people. In the last analysis the will of the people is always determined by the greatest voice in the community. We have come through a rather frustrating and dangerous period because this Parliament ignored the will of the people.
One may throw up one's hands in horror at the idea of people taking industrial action for political causes. It was done in the circumstances by those people who felt they had been denied their democratic rights and that their voice was being ignored. The message was spoken out very clearly during the last United Kingdom parliamentary election. That was reinforced by the submission to the House of a petition

signed by 313,000 electors, who unambiguously said they were not prepared to give consent to the form of power-sharing Executive that was imposed upon Northern Ireland. The Ulster people said they were not prepared to give their consent to the sort of all-Ireland institutions envisaged in the Sunningdale Agreement. This Parliament ignored the clear, stark message emerging from Northern Ireland. The majority of the people in Northern Ireland took the only peaceful way that was open to them to remedy that situation.
I recognise that nothing is to be gained by raking over the ashes, but one can learn some lessons from the situation. As we seek a solution in the future we must take into account how the people in Northern Ireland feel. We shall not be able to talk away all our differences. At the end of the day there will be a majority of some size. Whatever its size, that majority will have the decisive voice in Northern Ireland.
I was particularly encouraged to find that the Secretary of State and the Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland recognise clearly what has happened and concede that it would have been foolish and wrong to hold fresh elections to the Assembly, because those elections would not have produced an Assembly that could support an Executive. I hope the recognition of that fact will now be extended to the situation that must develop. There is no point in inviting the proposed Constitutional Convention to consider what has been rejected, no matter how varied or titivated. The principle has been clearly rejected.
The proposals in the White Paper can be put to good use. I am sorry there are serious deficiencies in the White Paper. The most serious difficulty referred to by many hon. Members is the under-representation of Northern Ireland in this House. All of us in Ulster will have rejoiced when the Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland declared in very welcome terms that he wanted the union to be maintained and that there was now nothing to be done which would sever the connection. There was much satisfaction to be gained from the manner in which he said that. But having said it, if hon. Members want to maintain Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom, we in Northern Ireland are


entitled to the full rights of United Kingdom citizens.
Many Members have said today that if we are to remain in the union the final decision would have to be taken in this Parliament. Important decisions will be taken shortly. When these crucial decisions have to be taken, how can anyone defend a situation in which Ulster is under-represented?
Before this Parliament produced the Government of Ireland Act 1920 as part of an Irish settlement, Ulster, with an electorate of 600,000, had 12 Members. Today, with an electorate of over 1 million, it still has only 12 Members. As we consider the interim arrangements proposed by the Government for the future government of Northern Ireland, the case for full representation in this House is immeasurably strengthened.
In case anyone is under the illusion that increased representation will mean a gain entirely for the coalition that I represent, I must say that it will not. The increase will increase the representation of other parties. There is an unarguable case for early action on this matter. Apart from doing technical justice to Northern Ireland, it will do more than any promises or guarantees to reassure the people of Northern Ireland that it is regarded as part of the United Kingdom.
It has been said that the reason that we have been denied our proper representation is that it would offend the Irish Republic and infringe the so-called "Irish dimension". I find it totally unacceptable and unreasonable that part of the United Kingdom should be denied its proper representation because a foreign country would find it objectionable and because it would impair good relations. There will never be good relations with the Irish Republic if that sort of term and condition is set for it. I hope that not only here but in Dublin there will be a quick recognition that increased representation at Westminster is important, and could benefit Ireland.
I also subscribe to the view that failing to put a date or time scale on elections is a deficiency. We all know that we cannot rush into elections without being able to assess the climate that will prevail. There are many factors to be con

sidered, including a possible election to this Parliament, and the security situation. But I am sure that the feeling in Northern Ireland is clamantly for an early election. I also feel, apart from what the electorate as a whole may think, that if the Convention is to be useful, the sooner it meets the better. In my discussions with the Secretary of State I told him that I thought that the elections should have been held yesterday. The longer we go on postponing the debates, discussions, negotiations—whatever one calls them—the more entrenched positions will be. A party political situation will grow up which will set at naught the hopes of the Convention before it meets. So I am very strongly for elections as early as possible.
It would be wrong to discuss the White Paper without referring to the security situation. Many of us were hoping that this new opportunity which was being presented to Northern Ireland would lead to a situation in which we could hope for at least a truce, if not a peace. As yet, there is no evidence that our hopes will be fulfilled. Indeed, there are some ugly pointers to the contrary—that we may expect fairly soon an unhappy escalation in the situation.
I hope that our fears are unfounded and that it is not too late to make an appeal to let the people talk in peace. But one has to be practical in this situation and ready to take on the challenge from those who want to wage war against the community.
I am well aware of how hon. Members and citizens of this part of the United Kingdom feel about the safety and wellbeing of Her Majesty's troops in Northern Ireland. I understand the desire to bring them home, and I support the argument that this should be done at the right and proper time. However, I find it a little irritating in this situation to have to consider the so-called temporary use, as envisaged in the White Paper, of Her Majesty's Forces in Northern Ireland. We must remember that it was this Parliament which decided to take over the responsibility for the internal security arrangements of Northern Ireland. When political decisions were taken, it was inevitable that the Army would be saddled with this millstone for five years, and probably even longer.
I believe that the Army is not the right organisation to tackle this job. I am convinced that it should be done through a police framework. I believe that there should be a new look at the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which has not benefited from the arrangements in the way it should have benefited to deal with the situation. Indeed, in my opinion, it is far too inefficient, and we have too many chairborne officers. A new look should be taken at the force itself and its rôle. If that rôle is honestly faced, we shall receive a response from the community in Northern Ireland to serve in the force. It is a sad admission to make that there are few recruits coming in, but it is understandable because the status and rôle of the police in the community is ill-defined, and morale is low.
The rôle of the RUC Reserve also needs to be examined; it is an appendage without real meaning. I believe that a lot would be gained by giving the reserve its own officer structure and a precise rôle. The reserve could be split into categories for different functions. It can be given a precise function in security matters and also a precise function in normal policing. Once this is done, I believe that there will be a response from the community. The UDR has not received the support one would like to have seen it given. This is largely due to the fact that the rôle and purpose of the regiment has been blurred. Often the method of using part-time soldiers has been unnecessarily burdensome in terms of loss of time from their well-paid work. If this became a more local force, with a local command structure which had incorporated within it a home guard, I believe that in a remarkably short time the Army's rôle in the security situation in Northern Ireland could be reduced to a small specialist one. It is important that we get its rôle right. Unless we are able to defeat the terrorists, or any sort of terrorist organisation, there will be no hope for a political democracy.
No matter what we do now, or how wide the support may be for any solution, if we are practical people we must realise that at some point in the not too distant future there will be a fresh violent challenge to authority in Northern Ireland. That is a price which any community pays when it lets the rule of law collapse or when it gives

violence and rebellion political credibility. There is always an international gain on the part of some in embarrassing the United Kingdom by supporting subversion and terrorism in Northern Ireland. The challenge will happen again in Northern Ireland, regrettable though that is. In the decisions we take now, particularly in relation to security, we must bear in mind that we are not dealing with something which will end and be put to bed; it will be with us for quite a while to come.
Apart from the organisation of the security forces, we need to look at the whole aspect of law and order, which has collapsed in a frightening way. The standards of the community as a whole have crashed. What used to be one of the most law-abiding parts of the United Kingdom has suffered an enormous growth in crime, and young people have grown up in a situation in which if they are denied something they can simply reach out and grab it by force. That situation will be reflected in the community for a considerable time.
Whatever form the future government of Northern Ireland takes, and whoever mans it, it must be in a position to provide a tough policy on the rule of law so as to win back respect for the rule of law. This will be made easier if we now, in dealing with the present situation, ensure that the Government and the authorities involved give proper respect to law and order.
There is much dissatisfaction with the present emergency provisions. I shall not digress on something which will be dealt with in greater detail later, but the whole apparatus of law enforcement in Northern Ireland cannot be defended. We have become far too complacent. Under the Emergency Provisions Act a man can be taken in for 28 days, but that 28-days period has become meaningless. He can be kept for months. But, far worse, in the ordinary process of the law, we have in prison people who have been on remand for 11, 12 and even 15 months.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Shame.

Mr. Craig: Do not let us forget for a moment that those men are innocent until proved guilty. We should not accept the idea of people spending such


a length of time in prison in the circumstances I have mentioned. But this is happening, even though more manpower than ever before has been directed into the judiciary and the prosecution services. Part of the problem lies in the whole political climate attached to these things, and far too often people are taken into custody before there is any reality of a genuine prima facie case against them, and are being held in custody in the hope that some sort of case can be cooked up. That would destroy anyone's respect for the rule of law. I hope that as we move forward to the White Paper we shall do so in the context of improving both the security position and respect for the use of normal legal processes.
Perhaps the main task of the Convention should be to look at what it can do in Northern Ireland to build up a common allegiance between both religious communities—if one has to talk about religion. I resent this, and I do not think that it is a particularly accurate way to proceed, but we have to see if we can end the situation in which almost one-third of the community has persistently refused to consider giving allegiance. It may not be possible, but we should see if it is possible to meet these people. That is far more worth while than to try to reconcile the irreconcilable.
Ulster people are flabbergasted when they read of hon. Members here talking about some form of constitutionally enforced coalition in Northern Ireland and then judge the standards which hon. Members set for themselves and the remarks here about even proposed voluntary coalitions. That sort of comparison is a valid one, and I hope that hon. Members will face it. There will not be and there cannot be any agreement on an enforced coalition or power-sharing structure at Executive level between people who are working for diametrically opposed situations.
The people of Northern Ireland are not content just to say, "We want to be part of the United Kingdom." They want to be governed in such a way as to prevent the end of the Union. There has to be a positive reaction to those who are working to bring about a united Ireland, and we cannot sit down in a government with people who are working to bring an

end to the constitution. It is futile dreaming to think that we can arrive at such a formula.
I believe that the overwhelming feeling in Northern Ireland will be expressed in this elected Convention. We want to be in the United Kingdom, and we want to be governed in the same way as any other part of the United Kingdom, according to the same standards and the same principles of democracy.
The Convention will probably recommend that we look at this problem in the context of the United Kingdom as a whole. If it is done in that way, no one will be able to say that it is the product of a bigoted Unionist Party. The greatest guarantee of fairness and impartiality is to have a common system of government throughout the whole United Kingdom.
The Secretary of State admitted that he had to adopt a far from satisfactory method of governing Northern Ireland—by Order in Council—in this interim period because this Parliament was so overloaded that it could not deal with the comparatively small volume of business that Northern Ireland would involve. That is not only a reason for getting on and doing something about Northern Ireland; it is a reason for getting on and doing something about the United Kingdom as a whole and seeing how we can lessen the burden on this Parliament. The people of Northern Ireland will welcome it.
Of course, there is an Irish dimension. It is a dimension of being good neighbours. The land frontier is our frontier, and it is the United Kingdom's as well. The Secretary of State said that Northern Ireland was in a unique position, in that it had a land frontier with the Irish Republic. However, it is also a frontier of the United Kingdom. It is natural that there should be good neighbourly relations between the people of all parts of these islands. They should be more than just good friends, and they should be working together. If everyone's place in this is recognised, that situation can be brought about, but it cannot come about by any kind of half-way arrangement.
We in Northern Ireland will not consent to any arrangement which can be described as shared sovereignty, a condominium, or any device of that nature.


We want to remain in the United Kingdom, and we claim our full rights as citizens of the United Kingdom. All of us who represent the United Unionist Coalition know that our parties will play a constructive rôle in this elected Convention. But it will be a realistic rôle, and we hope that we shall be able to heal the scars in our community.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. William van Straubenzee: There were some hon. Members who began this debate in a spirit of hope—a hope to which we can still hold on—but, when we listened to speeches such as that of the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), we heard the old sounds coming out of Northern Ireland with which we were familiar in the past. It is valuable that they should be expressed, but they show the difficult task which lies ahead of the Secretary of State, of which I am sure he is well aware. It behoves none of us to make light of the political difficulties still ahead of us in Northern Ireland.
The House will understand that although happily there remains a wide range of bipartisan approach to Northern Ireland policies, which I hope will continue, there is criticism from this side of the necessity for this discussion. I do not propose to go scoring back over the past unnecessarily, but I do not accept the inevitability of the collapse of the Executive. Judgments must be made on this matter. I am particularly critical of what happened over the famous walk or march back to work. I want to return to that point later.
I believe that within the official trade union movement of Northern Ireland—I am carefully distinguishing the official trade union movement from any political movement purporting to represent working people—are some of the finest people from both communities. I think that anything, however it worked out, whoever was to blame or whatever the fault, which tended to weaken their position would be extremely serious.
There is one group of people who have not been mentioned throughout our discussions but who ought to have mention in the winding up period. I suspect that they have not been mentioned because—great credit to them—they have been taken totally for granted. Throughout all these

constant changes and forms of Government—now there is a new one—we have taken the Northern Ireland Civil Service for granted. I have had 17 months experience of working with civil servants in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I think that I can say that the United Kingdom owes them a warm debt of gratitude for the way in which they have kept the administration going under different forms of Government, and I am sure that they will continue to do so. I know that they have done their work under great personal strain. I am thinking not only of the men at the top, who are technically called the mandarins, but of the small men, and women—small in terms of seniority—who, for example, take round the social security payments, and so on. These people have played a very great part in the life of Northern Ireland. We should remember them when we are contemplating yet another form of Government which they will have to serve.
Although none of the newly-appointed Ministers is here—I am sure they are busily engaged—the House should understand that few Ministers are under greater personal strain than the Secretary of State and the Ministers who are responsible for a Mark II version of direct rule. They have some very hard work to do, particularly the junior Ministers, because of the day-to-day administration of all the Departments, plus the travel and other strains which I know will be put upon them. I am sure that they will accept our good wishes as they set out on their new work.
I am glad that the debate opened with the Secretary of State's stalwart statement about power sharing. That is one of the most encouraging features of what otherwise I identify as a rather sombre debate. His phrase, as I recall, was that the concept of power sharing had bitten deeply into many people. I believe that is right. That was my impression. But the speeches made by the right hon. Member for Belfast, East, the hon. Members for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford), Londonderry (Mr. Ross), and others, make us realise that a large number of people still do not accept the concept in principle.
What one must say of it is that it brought to the surface of that part of the United Kingdom men of very considerable ability. They are not the only men of very considerable ability in Northern


Ireland. I am not making that case at all. There are men of ability in all parties. But I should have thought that a fair and unbiased observer would say of some of those who came into office as a result of power sharing, that in any assembly of people or in any kind of executive, whatever form it may take, they were men who had a considerable amount to contribute, and they did it with distinction and, in a short period, they made a considerable imprint, not only in Northern Ireland but also abroad where some of them travelled.
I believe that that was important. I believe that intelligent opinion—there is a considerable amount in Northern Ireland—has understood that. Many people feel that to have a final solution which virtually permanently excludes from effective contribution to executive action in Northern Ireland men of this kind must be a weakness and a loss for all communities and peoples in Northern Ireland.
I want to meet head-on a particular argument that has been developed, particularly from the Opposition side of the House. That is the argument that one cannot share power with men who aspire eventually to a united Ireland. Obviously this is a crucially important argument. In effect, if it is conceded, it excludes from effective power sharing a very substantial minority of people.

Captain Orr: Before my hon. Friend gets into that argument, will he concede that it is important in this context to define what he means by "power sharing"?

Mr. van Straubenzee: Not entirely—because I think that at present it is an open question. My hon. and gallant Friend did not have the advantage, although he has attended most carefully almost the whole debate, of listening to the right hon. Member for Belfast, East, for example. I hope that I do not do my hon. and gallant Friend an injustice.

Captain Orr: I did have that advantage.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I beg my hon. and gallant Friend's pardon. The identification, as I understand it, is between taking part in a minority position in some form of committee which discusses legis

lation as distinct from, in some way, having an effective voice in the executive actions which carry that out. I shall not seek to define this too exactly, for I cannot. That is, partially, what the Convention is all about. I am dealing with the questions of principle.
There are right hon. and hon. Members on both Front Benches and in Government and potentially in Government who believe that the right way forward for this country is to submerge its sovereignty in a greater sovereignty in Europe. I am not saying that I agree with that view. I happen not to agree with it in terms of moving sovereignty. But that view is held and deeply held by some. No hon. Member, or only a very few hon. Members on either side of this House, would hold that such a man who held that view and argued it was unfitted to take part in the government of the nation. What I am saying is that if I am asked to agree that, in Northern Ireland, United Kingdom standards should apply, I say this: United Kingdom standards insist that one should be required to argue one's case, certainly, but not to shoot and bomb one's case.
I do not happen to be a Republican. I hope I make that perfectly clear. I do not happen to wish to see Northern Ireland go into the South. I share the hope of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) that by the free consent of the majority of the people, Protestant and Catholic, for as long as that applies—it will be for them to say—Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom.
But I absolutely accept the right of people in Northern Ireland to argue a point of view different from mine, and I cannot for the life of me see that there is anything improper in discussing and arguing and seeking to persuade. It is wrong if a person, for doing so, is disqualified from holding executive power. Of course, it means that as long as such people do that, they must, in the way in which the last group who took part in the Executive did, bind themselves to the good of Northern Ireland according to the oath that was set out in the White Paper. But if we are to proceed from there on the narrow basis that anyone who conscientiously believes that the future of Northern Ireland rests in the


Republican direction cannot hold executive power then the future is very grim indeed.
We have spoken about the Protestant backlash, but for heavens' sake let us watch the Catholic backlash as well. We tread a very difficult path here and we can so easily get the balance badly wrong.

Mr. Molyneaux: The analogy my hon. Friend was drawing earlier between those who support integration and federalism in the EEC and those who support a united Ireland is not quite accurate. Does my hon. Friend not agree that perhaps one of the major causes of suspicion lay in the fact that the SDLP element in the Northern Ireland Government constantly made trips to Dublin to consult with and, presumably, to take orders from a foreign Government? Is that not a different situation?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I was not addressing my mind to that. I am not talking about the conduct of individual persons and I am not commenting, because I do not know, on what may or may not have happened. I was directing myself to what it seemed had been argued today, the matter of principle that if a man believed that the right way forward for his country was the Republican way, involving integration with the South, he should be eliminated from taking part in the executive decisions in the North. I reject that. So long as the argument is put forward peacefully and by persuasion, and not by the bomb and the bullet, it is part of the United Kingdom tradition that he should be enabled to do so. It is no good trying to persuade me that United Kingdom principles should apply in one respect but should not apply in others.
Next I come to discrimination, and here again the point I make has been contested. There was, and I suspect there still is, discrimination in Northern Ireland. The discrimination does not operate only in one direction. One of the things I found most distasteful when I became responsible to the Secretary of State of the day for appointments—and it seemed that we were junior Ministers at a time when substantial numbers of appointments had to be made following reorganisation of local government—was to find in certain important sectors—for example, professional expertise—that there were no

Catholics from whom to choose. The truth is that such men did not offer themselves for certain professional posts and for other positions because they knew that there was no future for them if they did.
We in the Conservative Party have a responsibility here. After all, it concerned the Conservative and Unionist Party, and I do not blink from that responsibility. I did not blink from it when I was in Northern Ireland. I recognised that I had a special responsibility as a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party.
Here I want to ask a direct question of which I have not given the Minister of State notice. Therefore, I shall understand if he does not wish to deal with it now. I must declare a personal, though not a pecuniary, interest. I was the chairman of the committee of trade unionist and employers, Catholic and Protestant, who produced the report which—not because of my chairmanship, but because of their work—was regarded as important, the report on ending discrimination in the private sector of employment. I am certain that it is very important, and few more hopeful signs have come out of Northern Ireland than that employer and employee, Catholic and Protestant, were prepared to move forward in this vital human sector.
Does the right hon. Gentleman still hope to introduce legislation arising from that report? If he does, does he envisage it being of such importance that it will be by way of a Bill, or will it be by way of the order procedure? I am talking of the interim period, of course.

Mr. Orme: The Government intend to bring it forward, but it will have to be in the next Session. It will be in the form of a Bill, not an order. Unfortunately, because of the fall of the Executive it is no longer possible to put the Bill through the Assembly, as we had agreed. It will be introduced at the earliest opportunity. My right hon. Friend gives it a high priority.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I welcome that. It is an important move forward. I have never had any doubts that those who will have the most difficult task in implementing the legislation are the trade union representatives. The matter will be decided down at the shop floor, where for many a year there have been per


sons of one faith. In fairness to the Protestant workers, let it be said that that does not apply only on the Protestant side, although it applies there more in numerical terms and also in one particularly identifiable industry. But it will be the trade unions and trade unionists who will decide. We in this House shall therefore need to support them very fully. As a result of some of the speeches I have heard today, but only some, I feel anxious whether implementation of the legislation will be possible to achieve on the ground.
Here I should like to say a word to my Catholic friends. We are all asked to rethink our positions. I say in all friendliness that one of the positions they will have to rethink is their position in education. I am not questioning their sincerity on the matter. As a committed Anglican, I cannot, will not and do not for a moment advocate that it is right for the Churches to withdraw from education in Great Britain or Northern Ireland. But there is a rigidity about the system over there which does not apply here. I think that the inquiry by Sir John Wolfenden will be very helpful.
I accept that the problem is part of a much larger problem. I have said before in the House that if all education were integrated, Catholic children in the Ardoyne would go to the Catholic schools and be taught by Catholics, and the reverse would apply in the Shankill. Therefore, I am not advocating anything so extreme as integration, but I am asking for some movement, probably in nursery education, which would be a massive contribution by my Catholic friends.

Mr. Fitt: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that during the lifetime of the Executive the then Minister in charge of the Department of Education, Mr. Basil McIvor, with the full support of the Executive—Catholics and Protestants—took the first tentative, preliminary steps to bring about integration?

Mr. van Straubenzee: That is a helpful and valid point. I read that speech with the greatest interest. I share the hon. Gentleman's admiration for Mr. McIvor. It is a great sadness that he was not able to carry on with his work. That tribute is particularly telling coming from the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt).
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneux) made an important point when he asked the Secretary of State not to make himself too remote from the Convention and suggested that he should not withdraw himself too completely from it. I know that it is a great mistake to draw upon past experience as though it is necessarily relevant, but it would be true to say that all parties who took part in the discussions last autumn—I am not talking about Sunningdale but before—found it helpful to have informal discussions with United Kingdom Ministers. Of course, all parties had the opportunity to take part in those discussions. Not for one moment did the parties which took part take instructions or anything of that nature. None of those taking part could ever have done so. Perhaps I may say without offence that a wide United Kingdom experience was helpful when we worked altogether on such a major problem. I take the Secretary of State's point that he does not want to interfere or dictate, but I hope that at the same time he will not be afraid to make himself available to the Convention together with his Ministers and officials, who between them have considerable expertise.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I take what the hon. Gentleman says. Of course we shall do all we can to help in the spirit of Northern Ireland playing its own part, but there is a point which we must consider, which is the purpose of debate—namely, the need for the people of Northern Ireland to stick together. To some degree the Executive was brought together from outside but the people of Northern Ireland came together themselves until the problems concerning the Executive arose. I give full praise for that. I would not have done it in any other way. As much as I want to do everything I can to assist Northern Ireland, the Province must realise that it is the people of Northern Ireland who must bear the problems.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point. The right hon. Gentleman must make his judgments and I am sure that we shall rely on him to make them.
Quite a lot has been said about the famous "Irish dimension". I must say to some hon. Members who sit on this


side of the House and who represent Northern Ireland constituencies that it is no good behaving as though the South did not exist. The fact is that geography has placed both the North and the South on the same island. I never realised until I went to Northern Ireland in a governmental capacity that there was a considerable amount of working together on many practical matters. I am sure that we should all be looking for further examples of that. I am glad to have the support in that of some Northern Ireland hon. Members. That, I think, is a helpful approach.
I can speak about the South with a greater freedom than can Ministers. I have no idea how they feel about the South. I have not asked them and I would not be influenced one way or the other. I say in a friendly way that the Government of the South are still not being as realistic as they should be about security on the border and for the island as a whole. Every time I think of cooperation between North and South—and I concede that it has improved—I think of Belleek. I think of that small outpost of soldiers and policemen which it is not exactly agreeable to visit from a safety point of view. It is dominated by high ground. It is outrageous that gunmen from the South can with some considerable ease—at any rate that was the position—fire on police and soldiers.
How sad it is, too, that the Secretary of State has to refer in paragraph 20 to disagreement on the vital question of extradition. The Northern Irish representatives and the United Kingdom representatives agreed, he records, that it would be right to proceed by way of a stiffened extradition. As it is, we are to make do with something less good. Never mind, it is happening.
I echo what was said about the Strasbourg hearings. What a bizarre situation it is that those proceedings should be going on when we ought to be working together in terms of security and everything else. Hon. Members have talked about the interesting experiment of a Home Guard in the South. Speaking from a strictly security point of view—I emphasise that—I can see the advantages of always having a locally raised, locally trained force employed and commissioned locally.
Politics enters into it, however. Those who represent Northern Ireland constituencies must understand the bitterness felt by large numbers of law-abiding people about the B Specials. I remember, 20 years ago, my first impression of anxiety when I discovered the County Commandant of the B Specials being concerned with the Unionist Committee and attending the same dinner as myself before I went on to a Unionist meeting. The B Specials were turned, in important respects, into a political police force. They had among them most honourable men, who served regardless of politics.
If there is a reaction against the B Specials—and by Heavens there is—then the politicians have a fearful amount to answer for. I have visited in my time in Government nearly every police station in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the present Ministers keep this practice going. I could not feel more strongly than I do about the necessity for building up the morale of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and for supporting it. I absolutely accept that it must be impartial. The right hon. Member for Belfast, East spoke of recruiting. Let it be remembered that in United Kingdom terms recruiting to the RUC is good. It is not good enough. In particular, and the constabulary is the first to admit this, it is not good enough in the terms of recruiting young Catholics. It is a tragedy, as we have heard from the hon. Member for Belfast, West, that the Executive collapsed before it was possible to introduce effective political Catholic representation.
We must remember the lesson learned from security in Northern Ireland in the past. It is that disaster came upon us when we had dual control of the security forces, when the Army was under the United Kingdom government and the police were under the Stormont Government. That was rectified. I very much hope that we shall remember that security lesson.
I have another thing to say which I can say as a result of innumerable discussions with constables, in twos or threes or in larger groups, sometimes late at night after they came in from patrol. I believe that the average man in the RUC does not want to be put back, as he would say, under a local committee. There is a pride now about being a United


Kingdom force which is important in terms of morale. The RUC has been inquired into a number of times. There have been a considerable number of inquiries into it. There is a limit to the number of times we can take a plant out, look at its roots, dust it and put it back and expect it to go on growing. If this Convention is to have the power to send for evidence and to discuss with and perhaps question the chief constable, then we might be in for a yet further period of uncertainty where the Royal Ulster Constabulary is concerned. I very much hope that that situation can be avoided.
I sum it up in this way: this is a sombre debate. I do not feel optimistic but I am determined not to be pessimistic about the future of Northern Ireland. The Opposition will support, as they have before, constructive efforts to make a move forward in this direction for a people to whom we look and to whom we owe much, a sturdy and splendid people, part of the United Kingdom, part of us and deserving of our support.

9.31 p.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Stanley Orme): I should like first of all to underline a point made by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) in regard to education, and the ideas he put forward, which Mr. Basil McIvor was developing in the Executive, regarding education for very small children in the nursery school. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked the Minister of State dealing with education to look into this, so it has not been brushed aside; we are interested in it. One thing that struck me about the police force when I met the whole of the Executive of the Police Federation of Northern Ireland, of the Royal Ulster Constabulary—a body of about 28 or 30 men from every part of Northern Ireland—were two points which they made to me on which they were unanimous.
First, they wanted to be an unarmed police force in the future, and secondly, they did not want to return to a position where they were at the behest of a single political party or political movement in Northern Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman was referring to United Kingdom standards in that respect, I believe that this has become firmly established among

the RUC in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) says that this is not true. All I can say is that the body I met was truly representative—as were others whom I have met—and that I found that this was a general desire.
There are several points to which I wish to reply, not least some raised by the right hon. Gentleman earlier. I agree this has been an important and sombre debate. It has fluctuated a little, sometimes towards optimism, sometimes towards pessimism. I hope that the UUUC Members will now feel that their views are given full weight—they could not have been given more weight than has been given to them in this Government White Paper—but they must now expect that this implies a responsibility on their part, not only to the people they represent in Northern Ireland but to people in the rest of the United Kingdom.
In my opinion people in the rest of the United Kingdom will watch the debates, the proposals and the arguments that will flow from this Convention, and I believe it is upon those things that Northern Ireland and its politicians will be judged. We were asked particularly by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Ian Gilmour), who opened the debate, about Strasbourg and the Convention that is to be held, and the Irish Government's attitude towards this. Perhaps I can tell the House and the right hon. Gentleman that there are provisions under Article 28 (B) of the Convention for the Commission to place itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement of any matter placed before it on the basis of respect for human rights as defined in the convention.
Her Majesty's Government believe that progress made in Northern Ireland provides a fully adequate basis for a friendly settlement. This has been made clear to the Irish Government, and we very much hope that they will be prepared to make a positive response. Success in negotiations for a friendly settlement must depend upon the attitude of the Irish Government, and I am sure they will take note of what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. I do not want to take that further at this stage, but I hope that the right hon.


Gentleman will weigh these words carefully.

Mr. Fitt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in 1969 and 1970 certain things happened in Belfast and Derry which needed investigation? I accept the British public's support for an inquiry when there is doubt, as there was when 13 people were killed in Derry and the Lord Chief Justice had a judicial inquiry. At that time I made certain allegations, and I have signed affidavits which are involved in the Irish Government's case against the British Government. I believe that what I did was right and, if there is no fear, such a commission should inquire into the charges and discover whether or not they are right.

Mr. Orme: I shall not go into the history of this matter. I do not deny what my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said, but this is a very delicate matter. I hope he will read carefully what I have said to the House. We look to the future and to the proposals that are coming forward. I say that in no spirit of criticism of my hon. Friend.
Much has been said of the economic situation in Northern Ireland—

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say that he would deal with the guerrilla festival?

Mr. Orme: I am coming to that.
On the economic aspect, the White Paper or statement which the Government will produce in the autumn will cover all aspects of the Northern Ireland economy. The Government will put before the House the facts as they exist, not weighted in any way, so that they can be judged by the people of Northern Ireland against the background of the Convention. If it were felt by certain sections in Northern Ireland that UDI would be the answer to the problem, such a decision, if it were approved by the House, would have to be weighed against the economic facts.
Part 5 of the White Paper deals with finance, and paragraphs 38 and 40 cover in some detail the Government's attempts to close the gap between the standards in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Paragraph 38 spells out unemotionally and objectively the extra financial assistance which Northern Ireland, as one of

the economically disadvantaged regions of the United Kingdom, receives from the more economically developed parts of the country. This is not the first time that these figures have been set out so that the people of Ulster should know the facts. I want to draw attention to the broader economic significance of the United Kingdom financial assistance which is important to the ordinary men and women in Northern Ireland. We do not mean by economics, cold statistics contained in a White Paper. We speak about the very livelihood of the people in Northern Ireland.
As Minister responsible for commerce and manpower, I grapple with problems of major consequence to Northern Ireland, such as the Harland and Wolff shipyard and Hughes Bakery in Belfast. If those problems are to be resolved the money will have to come from the rest United Kingdom. Those facts should be clearly known and set out before people in Northern Ireland.
The difference between total expenditure in Northern Ireland and the total contribution towards financing that expenditure coming from Northern Ireland sources—the rates and taxes paid by the people of Northern Ireland—represent a straight addition to the Northern Ireland gross domestic product of perhaps one-quarter. There is nothing to be ashamed of in this. The essential purpose of the Government's regional policy is to redistribute income from the richer to the poorer sections of the country. But it follows that without such an addition Northern Ireland would be poorer, employment opportunities would be fewer, and public and private standards would be lower. The fact that about something like one-quarter of Northern Ireland's GDP consists of a transfer of resources from Great Britain is but one aspect of the complex economic, commercial and financial relations which are such a feature of the British dimension of Northern Ireland affairs.
Currently, Ministers in Northern Ireland are under pressure, day in day out, for more financial expenditure in different parts of the country. We must now argue for this against the economic situation in the rest of the United Kingdom. We must justify this to the Government. Present Ministers are fighting desperately


hard to create a solid economic and financial base in Northern Ireland because we know that that is essential if we are to have real stability.
People in Northern Ireland, not least the elected Members, should realise the problems we must argue about with our own Government colleagues in respect of priorities. Therefore, if people do not take seriously the proposals and suggestions put forward in the White Paper our job will become almost impossible, not just more difficult. These points should be taken into account.
The recent UWC action has created further problems for the Government. One of these is that the agricultural base is very wide compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. Its efficiency and worthwhile productivity, which the Government acknowledge, have been commented on this afternoon. About 9·3 per cent. of workers in Northern Ireland are employed in agriculture. A past Minister of Agriculture is present at this moment. I do not know whether he will ever be a future Minister; we shall have to wait and see.
The agricultural base in the rest of the United Kingdom totals approximately 3·1 per cent. That is a very wide gap. It shows the narrow economic base now existing in Northern Ireland. It is essential that that economic base is broadened. That is why the discussion about Harland and Wolff is vital to Northern Ireland and its future. Some members of the UUUC have been to see me about those problems. We have discussed them. I hope they understand their importance and urgency.
When we discussed these problems the hon. Gentleman raised the question of the trade unions and the shop stewards' movement in Northern Ireland. The trade union movement in Northern Ireland is one of the best in the United Kingdom. Its trade union leadership and many of its shop stewards compare favourably with those in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Since the disastrous and divisive UWC action the Government have taken positive steps to consult trade union leaders. I recently chaired a meeting attended by every full-time official in Northern Ireland, which was addressed by my right

hon. Friend. Continual meetings are being held with shop stewards, not least in shipbuilding and other crucial industries. The Government are working with the official union movement, which is such an excellent base. The British labour movement should not neglect this aspect because its assistance would be extremely welcome.
I want to say something about the resettlement scheme for detainees. My right hon. Friend announced today a small number of releases of detainees from the Maze, which he hopes to maintain over coming weeks. Seven people were released today, and this will be an on-going process. The Government want to make it clear to some people outside that it could go on indefinitely, if we got some co-operation, and if violence diminishes. I hope that this message goes clearly to those who often make the greatest noise about detention but who help to maintain it by continuing the violence.
The House will remember that we discussed the possibility of a sponsorship scheme to assist resettlement. Upon examination, we found that that was not a practical proposition and we have not pursued it. We have developed a much broader approach to resettlement after studying various aspects of the problem. Government agencies have been alerted to the part that they can play and the Government have undertaken to give financial assistance to independent work in this area, up to a total of £20,000 in this financial year.
The principal organisation which will undertake this work is the Resettlement Association (Northern Ireland). I want to make it clear that this association represents both communities and is completely independent of the Government. It is a private and independent body, which recognises the particular problems facing men released from detention and is concerned to help. It will appoint field workers, who will assess the position in their various communities.
I hope that hon. Members will not ask me how the association will work, because this is not under the control of the Government. I would ask them to ask the body itself, which is independent. If we pursued this process in any other way, it might be counter-productive. This


body is autonomous, and outside the Government's control.

Mr. McNamara: What the Minister has said is very important, but he mentioned £20,000, which works out at about £33 per detainee. Is that sufficient for the work envisaged?

Mr. Orme: I think that my hon. Friend has misunderstood me. No money will be paid to detainees personally. This is a pilot scheme—[Interruption.] If it is not enough, the Resettlement Association can say so. I emphasise that we want to ensure as little governmental interference as possible.

Mr. Dalyell: I welcome the start made by my right hon. Friend, but has it been made clear to those who are leaving the Maze that they may not come out if they misbehave themselves?

Mr. Orme: One cannot lecture detainees. That is why the sponsorship scheme was dropped. When they leave the Maze—and we know that a number were released today—we know that they will be free. The Resettlement Association will be able to give assistance if it is required. The detainees will have to ask for it, and in that way they will be independent. I know that my hon. Friend appreciates that if there were any form of compulsion, or if the detainees were required to report, it would destroy the whole system. I hope that the House will give the scheme its blessing, so that the Resettlement Association may be able to carry out the work for which it is responsible.

Rev. Ian Paisley: In regard to the people who have been released, can the Minister say how long they were detained and what was the nature of the suspicion under which they were held?

Mr. Orme: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he was not in a position to give that information at present. It is up to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) to raise those matters in other ways, possibly by Questions. When the names of the detainees released today become known it will be observed that they are balanced between the two communities—Catholic and Protestant.
I turn to the subject of the festival, about which questions have been asked. The Government do not go out of their way to welcome these events. There is a limit to the Government's power, but continued publicity only enhances the existence of these bodies and organisations. The official Sinn Fein which organises the event is no longer a proscribed organisation, and as my noble Friend said in the House of Lords on 17th June, it is not proposed to alter the law to prevent an expression of view, provided that there is no breach of existing law. It was made clear that Her Majesty's Government would not extend tolerance of political views to the criminal terrorist, and that Her Majesty's Government would take all steps in their power to ensure that people who had committed terrorist crimes did not enter the United Kingdom for any purpose, and to prevent public disorders arising from meetings, marches and demonstrations. That is the Government's position. We do not want to take a sledge hammer to crack a nut. We hope that these steps will not be necessary, but if they are, the security forces will be in a position to act.
I was asked a number of questions about the Convention. It may be useful to give some information before Monday's debate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the Newfoundland Convention. Our proposals were not based on that convention, but there are a number of similarities in the convention introduced by the Attlee Government. I was asked about referenda. The Government have taken power to hold referenda, if necessary. The questions arising from the Convention can be put in the form of referenda, but before this can be done it will require the approval of this House. The Government may also ask their own questions in the form of referenda, irrespective of what comes out of the Convention. Powers in this respect remain under the Bill.
It is of note, historically, that in the Newfoundland situation three questions were asked, two arising from the Convention and one from the British Government. The question from the British Government was the one finally accepted by the electorate in a referendum, not the two questions from the Convention itself.


That was after two years of Convention work.
We have heard arguments and an exchange of views in the debate about the Irish dimension and power sharing. My right hon. Friend has not in any way restricted the Convention in what it may or may not discuss, but it cannot meet in isolation. It must take account of paragraph 45 of the White Paper which basically states that the standards that apply in the rest of the United Kingdom must apply in Northern Ireland. Frankly, I cannot see the House accepting anything that does not measure up to these to note that no one is now against power standards. Arguments have gone on about power sharing, and it is interesting, but everyone has a different interpretation of what it means. It is not a coalition; it is a distinct form of government for Northern Ireland. It is, I hope, a prerequisite to forming normal political intercourse in Northern Ireland, based upon economic and social grounds.
Finally, I come to the question of elections. There has been pressure in the debate, not least from the right hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), and Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. West), for early elections. It is strange that when my right hon. Friend and I are in Northern Ireland we are consistently being told otherwise. We have had

it from the UWC, we have had it at the weekend from Mr. Harry Murray—who, I see, is not now very popular with the right hon. Member for Belfast, East—and we have had it from Mr. Glen Barr and many other people. They say that they want time particularly for the Protestant working class to organise and present itself to the electorate in a form more acceptable and more representative of the people. One gentleman, whose credentials are impeccable in the Protestant community told me: "We do not want early elections, Mr. Orme, because we do not want to see the same flag-waving politicians returned to this new Convention." He did not mention any names, and I did not have the temerity to ask him.
My right hon. Friend will decide at the appropriate moment when the elections are to take place. They will 'lot take place in the immediate or near future. I believe that Northern Ireland needs a breathing space and that the White Paper gives it an opportunity. Many people in the House have demanded this opportunity; they have now got it, and it is their responsibility to make it work.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the White Paper on the Northern Ireland Constitution (Command Paper No. 5675).

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS)

10.0 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move,
That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 (Continuance) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.
The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 is on the statute book because of the emergency that existed in Northern Ireland at that time. When the Bill was being debated we did not deny the then Government a Second Reading, although we had criticisms and doubts about it, because we recognised that grave security problems required grave remedies.
However, as I explained to the House on 4th April after we had taken office, it was our wish to make changes in the content of the Act, but we could not be ready with the necessary legislation before the Act was due to lapse. As the House knows, I have appointed a committee under Lord Gardiner to examine the workings of the Act, but it is only right in the interim that we should justify the decision to renew the Act for a further period without amendment.
The Act makes emergency provisions and is by its nature temporary, to cover the period of an emergency. If its provisions are to be renewed, clearly it is necessary to demonstrate that the emergency continues in force. I think it unlikely that any hon. Member, especially from Northern Ireland, would dispute the contention of the Government that an emergency exists in Northern Ireland at the present time. The harsh facts speak for themselves. At the present time, approximately 15,000 soldiers are serving in Northern Ireland on security duties. In only the past three months, 178 bombs were exploded by terrorists and there were 909 shooting incidents, 581 involving the security forces. Six soldiers, five policemen and 35 civilians were killed. In addition, 67 soldiers, 21 policemen and 458 civilians were injured and treated in hospital as a result of terrorist activity.
During this three-month period, 379 persons were charged with security

offences in the courts and 138 detained under interim custody orders.
Terrorists have exploited the "proxy driver" method of delivering bombs wherein innocent people are made to plant bombs against threats to members of their families held hostage for the purpose. As a result, very serious damage has been done to city and town centres and the life of communities seriously disrupted. Young people and children were caught in the act of planting bombs, and women and girls have planted incendiary devices in shops and other busy commercial premises causing many shops to be burnt out. Attacks against security forces in rural and border areas through ambush, culvert mines and other means have continued.
In this respect—and I have no doubt that it was done by Ministers in the previous administration—shortly after arriving in Northern Ireland I walked through the middle of Belfast after it had been bombed. All I can say to those who think that this is convincing the people of Belfast that they want a united Ireland is that I wish that I had a recording of the language that was used and the description applied to their fellow citizens in Northern Ireland.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State went to Bangor and down into Armagh, because it was part of a piece. At the same time, I was down in Newton Butler. To see what was left of that village was quite an experience.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: Will my right hon. Friend accept that those who visit the Province from time to time will agree with his analysis? It is a terrible catalogue of disaster and tragedy. But is he saying that the Emergency Provisions Act, therefore, has not worked and that this is an argument for doing something else?

Mr. Rees: I know that many people who visit the Province do not support the Government's view. I know also that my hon. Friend feels strongly about these matters. But I hope that he will allow me to develop my argument. I have to recognise certain vital facts. Intimidation remains an ugly cancer in


Northern Ireland and witnesses will not appear in court.
I asked for the figures of recent dates because it came to my notice that certain things had happened. Since 11th June—about a month—there have been 12 punishment shootings by terrorist organisations, nearly all by knee-capping, which is a vicious process of shooting through the knees with the intention of laming the victim for life. That is in a month. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that witnesses will not come forward unless their identities are concealed, and, even if this is guaranteed, only a very brave man will do more than give information to the police.
It is a fact of life that there is intimidation. There was intimidation during the Ulster workers' strike, as we know from people who contacted us. Information given to the police by a witness will, all too often, disclose the identity of that witness even if he were not to appear. In addition, information obtained by questioning a terrorist will ail too often disclose his identity to other terrorists. Such disclosure can be a death warrant.
Let me give but one example—the worst that I could find. Last November terrorists thought that a 15-year old boy with a mental age of five had passed information to the security forces. He was abducted from a training home by an armed terrorist and murdered in cold blood.
Given these facts, if terrorists are to be prevented from roaming the streets, there must be a procedure whereby a witness's presence does not disclose his identity and in which evidence given by the security forces does not disclose his identity.
Intimidation, including intimidation of families, exists on a terrible scale in Northern Ireland. Perhaps I may give some examples of cases where, but for the intimidation of witnesses, criminal charges would have been brought but detention had to be resorted to. I say to the right hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. West) that I signed orders in most, not all, of those cases because they were in my time, and I signed them on the advice of the security forces. It was my right to say "No". Perhaps I may give some very

interesting examples including some in recent weeks.
There were the Bloody Friday atrocities on 21st July 1972 when bombs exploded in Belfast killing seven soldiers and nine civilians and injuring more than 100 civilians. Right hon. and hon. Members will recall seeing on television the bits of people on the sidewalk being shovelled up into bags. Some of the people who committed that outrage were detained.
There were the infamous Antrim Road murders on 23rd March 1973 when three Army NCOs were lured to a flat on the Antrim Road and there callously shot. Detention was resorted to.
There was the Divis Flats explosive device detonated as some soldiers patrolled the flats. Two soldiers were killed and two were seriously wounded, one being blinded in both eyes and the other in one. Detention was resorted to.
There was a rocket attack on Rosemount police station, Londonderry, on 14th November 1973. One of the three rockets fired in the late afternoon missed the police station and hit a nearby school.
There were the Rathcoole murders in North Belfast when four gunmen entered a workmen's hut, ordered Protestant workers to kneel, and then machine-gunned the remaining five workers, instantly killing two. That was on 31st January 1974. Detention was resorted to.
There were the murders at the Abbey meat factory where five workmen were machine-gunned as they went to work on 11th February 1974. One died and four were wounded.
There was the murder of Major Farrell, an Army recruiting officer, as he took his dog for a walk on 23rd March.
There was the Grand Central Hotel bombing on 28th March when a hijacked vehicle containing up to 500 1b. of explosives totally disrupted life in the centre of Belfast and caused extensive damage to shops and premises in Royal Avenue and 24 civilian casualties.
There was the Ballyduff shooting when a burst of automatic fire was directed into another work hut in Glengormley, killing two and injuring five others on 7th May. I signed interim custory orders.
In addition, there are numerous terrorists in detention in Northern Ireland


merely because witnesses refuse to come forward and give evidence in court. For example, there are snipers in detention, one who shot dead three soldiers in less than two months; bombers who completely destroyed the GPO sorting office in Londonderry, and others who have bombed and burnt the centres of Londonderry and other towns from Lisburn to Strabane; gunmen who shot down three soldiers, killing one, in the very centre of Belfast on 13th March 1974, and made good their escape through a church, and others who only recently shot dead two police constables whilst they were on duty at the junction of Finaghy Road and the Upper Lisburn Road. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) knows very well the case involving the escape through a church.
I could go further. There have been ICOs for crimes on both sides of the border. These facts of death convince me that the existing detention procedure must be maintained until Lord Gardiner and his colleagues have had an opportunity to consider alternative methods of dealing with the problem. Would that all could be dealt with through the normal processes of the courts.
The commissioners, who have to decide whether detention orders are to be made, are required to have had experience as a judge, barrister, advocate or solicitor for at least 10 years in the United Kingdom. In practice, many are judges and others are recorders or deputy judges. They are persons with a wide experience of assessing evidence. Respondents may use solicitors and counsel to represent their interests. A commissioner may sign a detention order only if he is satisfied not only of the person's involvement in terrorism but also that the detention is necessary for the protection of the public. There is an appeal tribunal of experienced judges. There is a mandatory review system after one year, and subsequently at six-monthly intervals, by the commissioners. There is a power for the Secretary of State to refer persons for review at other times, and a power for the Secretary of State to direct executive releases. There is a problem which I recognise over delays in hearings. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will talk on this.
At this point I wish to expand the announcement I made earlier today. The previous administration, as an earnest of their commitment to phase out detention, made an executive release of 65 detainees before Christmas which we fully supported. I have heard people say to me in Northern Ireland that it was the wrong 65, and so on. But 65 releases were made. Since that time there have also been a large number of releases by the commissioners within the judicial procedures laid down by the Act. The commissioners have this year, since 1st January, released in all 131 detainees—48 on first hearing and 83 on reviews.
I have now decided that the time is ripe to make a start with further executive releases. The House will realise the risks involved in such action before violence has ended. I have, therefore, decided that the initial number will be modest and spread over a period of time—a beginning which, if there is a response, can go on. If as a result of releasing a very small number today the middle of Belfast is bombed tomorrow night, or Strabane, and in a big way, that will be the answer to what I admit is only an earnest of intention.
Detention can be brought to an end only when violence is checked. Those who indulge in violence have it in their hands to bring it to an end. Indeed, one would hope that they would now appreciate that there is much to be gained in seeking their aims by political means. It is our hope that all in Northern Ireland, as we said in the White Paper, would participate in the political processes. It would be tragic if those now renouncing violence came from only one side of the divide. An end to violence could end detention, irrespective of the legislation.

Mr. Arthur Latham: I have been listening carefully to what my right hon. Friend has been saying. I understand that the Attorney-General will be dealing with the question of delays. But does it mean that where the commissioners ordered the release of 48 detainees on first hearing, they were in effect indicating that the advice on which my right hon. Friend acted, from the security forces, was perhaps not good advice? Does he not appreciate that this is one of the objections that many of us had in principle to the original


legislation, and still have? What he has to be satisfied about is not just the lurid situation that he has painted so vividly but whether this measure, first, has the effect that it is intended to have and, secondly, does not carry with it the very serious danger of the wrong people being imprisoned by executive action, and very often for much more than 28 days.

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend is right. The evidence is put to me in the first instance and I decide whether they shall go before the commissioners. In 48 hours the decision is reached whether they should be released, and that is the point of having the commissioners.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I do not think the Secretary of State intends to mislead the House, hut is not the procedure that he signs an interim custody order and then within 28 days the chief constable signs an order which keeps the man inside to wait to go before the commissioners?

Mr. Rees: I hope that I am not misleading my hon. Friend. In the first instance I sign the ICO.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Accepting the force of the argument advanced by the Minister of State half an hour ago that one should not lecture ex-detainees, does the Secretary of State sympathise with the argument recently put by both extreme sides that anyone who was picked up and then let out and was subsequently had up on a serious crime—say burning Belfast or something like that—should then get a fairly ferocious punishment? That would be acceptable to both sides.

Mr. Rees: If the next time round the evidence was such that one could put the offence through a normal court, I am sure that the fact would be taken into account, but the point is that it depends on how soon afterwards the offence takes place. I have had a number of these cases. The question if someone was the subject of an ICO some time back is how far that should be taken into account at a later stage. There are all sorts of legal difficulties. The point has been put to me by members of the minority community as justification for releasing people. The problem is that if I experiment in this

way and a soldier is shot, do I say to him, "Hard luck chum, I was trying it out to see whether it worked"? That is not "on" for me as a way of dealing with the situation.
Let no one be in any doubt that a ready response would be forthcoming from the Government if there were an end to violence. As a first step in the Government's policy of phasing out detention I have today ordered the release of seven detainees, and I hope to make further regular releases if the security situation permits. I intend to operate executive releases in parallel with the provision in the Act under which a detainee's case is reviewed by a commissioner at regular intervals after he has been detained. I shall examine the cases of detainees which will shortly be coming up for review and I shall consider the release in the light of the security situation. The others will proceed before the commission in the normal way. I shall continue to take fully into account the views and advice of the security forces.
When a detainee is released, all the normal welfare facilities in Northern Ireland will be available to him. We recognise the special difficulty the detainee will face. It is essential that men should not drift back into terrorism because of social and domestic problems. In addition, the Government are prepared to provide limited funds to independent organisations working in this field. Inevitably there will be risks in letting out people where independent commissioners have been satisfied that they have been involved in terrorism. Their release does not give them licence to return to violence with impunity. If the security situation deteriorates, the executive releases will stop.
I repeat that it is the men of violence who are keeping people in detention. It is the Provisional IRA who can contribute most by phasing it out, but Protestant para-military forces are involved. If they respond, so will the Government. It is our wish to phase detention out, and it can be phased out in the context of violence ceasing. We have shown an earnest of our intention. If the violence stops, we can release detainees. That would also lead to the wider question which I raised earlier in the day of the rôle of the Army.

Rev. Ian Paisley: We all admit that it is a very serious matter we are handling tonight. One point that disturbs some of us on this side of the House is this: is it fair, because the IRA starts a campaign after releases, to blame the people the right hon. Gentleman has released? Surely that is part of their plan. The Secretary of State could release, say, seven men and tonight there could be bombings. It does not necessarily mean that it is their responsibility. I often think that the IRA has a vested interest, to keep the campaign going, in keeping internment.

Mr. Rees: With the numbers who are inside, and the largish numbers who have come out in a recent period, the argument about releasing people from Long Kesh, Crumlin and Derry is not that it is the seven who are responsible. The point is that, given the evidence that has put people inside, I am not prepared to put the security forces at risk. I try to go out with the soldiers once a week. It concentrates the mind. While the violence exists, if there is no Act the Army comes out straight away as far as I am concerned. I am not prepared to put people's lives at risk in this way.
It is not only the Government but those involved in violence who must show an earnest of intent. Although there are some people in both parts of the community who, I believe, are politically motivated, it is the sectarian murders that worry me most. People have deep inside them a desire to kill somebody from the other political faith. [An HON. MEMBER: "Religious faith."] Call it religious, call it what one will, but I do not believe that they are politically motivated, whatever they may say when they eventually come to be made the subject of interim custody orders or dealt with through the courts. They then say that they are political prisoners. I do not deny that some people are politically motivated. I am not giving numbers. But some people would haunt Northern Ireland for years if peace were to break out tomorrow. Stories come to me or my right hon. Friend in the mornings of Protestant girls and Catholic girls and, sadly, of the sectarian murders.
I am not taking issue with anyone about the IRA's having committed the largest number of crimes against the com

munity as a whole. We are talking about sectarian murders, of people being killed because of their religion. There have been over 200 such killings, the majority of which are Protestants killing Catholics.
A recurrent theme throughout my speech so far has been the Gardiner Committee. I should like to close by discussing this committee in more detail. As I have said, the Government when in Opposition had grave doubts about this Act. We considered that the terms of reference of the Commission chaired by Lord Diplock, on which the Act was based, were too narrow and restrictive. We have always felt that emergency legislation such as this should have been dealt with in conjunction with an examination of human rights and civil liberties.
Consequently, the House may recall, the committee under the chairmanship of Lord Gardiner was set up with much wider terms of reference. They were to consider what provisions and powers, consistent to the maximum extent practicable in the circumstances with the preservation of civil liberties and human rights, are required to deal with terrorism and subversion in Northern Ireland, including provisions for the administration of justice, and to examine the working of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973; and to make recommendations.
That is consistent with the view that I expressed on behalf of the Opposition when I was shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I made it clear then that, given violence in Northern Ireland, the community had the right to take special action to deal with murder and violent crime. I called in aid the European Convention on Human Rights which in Article 15 recognises the right of society to take special action in this respect by derogation. The convention recognises that in modern society there are those who will seek to achieve their political ends by military means.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West may recall that I have suggested to the SDLP the need for a Bill of Rights to be considered by a commission of eminent lawyers. I then considered that a Commonwealth lawyer should be involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West will remember that I put to him that the commission should also consider


the maintenance of the rule of law in circumstances such as those that have prevailed in Northern Ireland in recent years. He may remember receiving a letter from me to that effect.
The House will notice the link between the concern that I expressed on that occation and the passage in the terms of reference of the Gardiner Committee which refers to the preservation of civil liberties and human rights. One of the first things that I did when taking up office and setting up the committee was to act on the advice that I had given the previous Government when in Opposition, which was something that I had always thought it necessary to do. I made it clear to Lord Gardiner that the Government wished him to interpret his terms of reference in the widest sense. That the right hon. and noble Lord has agreed to do.
The committee has already met and issued a general invitation for evidence to be submitted to it. I trust that any individuals or organisations who wish to contribute to the coming debate on enforcing law and order in Northern Ireland whilst preserving civil liberties and human rights will avail themselves of that opportunity. The committee will be meeting regularly over the next few months both in London and in Northern Ireland. It will be treating the task as a matter of extreme urgency.
It is necessary to ask the House to renew the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973. It is the hope of the Government that we shall be able to present new legislation in the not too-distant future, based on the report of Lord Gardiner's Committee, which will provide powers to cope with terrorism and subversion in Northern Ireland while maintaining to the maximum extent practicable the human rights and civil liberties of the people of Northern Ireland.
I have reduced the period for which the Act will operate from a year to six months. That will be the period during which the Gardiner Committee will report. I say to the House that without such legislation the security forces cannot operate. I repeat, if that legislation is not passed then I will not order a soldier to go out into the streets of

Belfast. What matters, irrespective of legislation, is that the violence shall cease.
There is a split between the two wings of the IRA—namely, the Provisional IRA and the official IRA. They argue as to the effect of the bombings and killings as they put it, and as I would put it, in certain parts of Northern Ireland and on working-class people elsewhere. We have given an earnest of intention and we require back an earnest of intention. If that is forthcoming it will be possible to phase out detention. I offer that in the same spirit as the Government have offered to Northern Ireland the chance to work together to find a political solution to the problem which has haunted Ireland for many years, and particularly for the past 50 years.
As I have said today, we are considering policing again not in the sense of Hunt and of picking up the plant in the way that was suggested, very understandingly, by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), but of finding a way of returning to normal policing. We have asked the Army to do an impossible job. In the meantime the legal way forward is for the House to await Gardiner. The real way out is to phase out detention. I have today speeded that process by starting the process again from an executive point of view. It is for others to respond.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: No one who listened to what my right hon. Friend had to say in his long catalogue of horrible crimes could fail to be impressed by the enormity of the situation and its very dreadfulness. Therefore, in challenging my right hon. Friend I am not challenging him in the sense of his desire to do well in Northern Ireland. I do not mean that in a political sense but in a community sense. I am not challenging either his bona fides or his good intentions, or those of the Minister of State.
What I am challenging is the whole issue whether his judgment is correct in this situation. This is what the argument is about. It concerns objectives and ways of achieving them. In an earlier debate the Minister of State thought that I was trying to make a cheap point when I spoke in terms of a grant of £33 per


detainee. My right hon. Friend misunderstood me. I was not suggesting that in a resettlement sense. I was asking whether £20,000 was enough for that task. I am not trying to score points at the expense of anyone.
We spent nearly six weeks in Opposition—from 7th May to 25th June—examining and probing the terms contained in this measure which we are being asked to renew. Our discussions in Committee occupied 669 columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT. There were 20 Divisions, many of which were decided by the casting vote of the Chair. We all remember the sense of expectancy as we waited to see which way it would go. We were dealing with matters such as juries.
This is not an idle debate. A number of distinguished Members now holding important offices—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, the Minister of State—voted on those many issues. It is right to ask why, in the time the Government have been in power, they have not done something more positive.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: There is a technical point. The Government have been in office for four months. If I had started on the first day I took office and brought forward a Bill with a number of clauses it could not have got through the legislative processes in time.

Mr. McNamara: We are to debate another constitution for Northern Ireland on Monday. My right hon. Friend seems to forget that there is a section in the Act we are debating which enables us to drop parts of it. He has failed to take the opportunity to do this. If, as a earnest of the Government's intentions, they had been prepared to drop some sections—not directly concerned with internment—we would have been able to see which way things were going. The advice seems to have been that we must leave all this to Lord Gardiner. As I said to my right hon. Friend in the House last week, we are shuffling off responsibility, just as the Opposition shuffled off responsibility to Lord Diplock, because we are not prepared to take some of the decisions which should have been taken.
We are not talking just about detention. We are talking about trial without jury,

on which there was a close vote in Committee. We are talking about trial before a single judge, which was decided in Committee by the Chairman's casting vote. We are talking about changing the onus of proof in certain cases, in particular in possession cases. We are talking about the admissibility of written statements ill evidence, the denial of the hearsay rule. I could go through quotation after quotation from speeches made by Labour Front Bench spokesmen on that occasion—many of whom are on the Government Front Bench now—on issue after issue, not concerned with internment, in which my right hon. Friends said that what we were doing was wrong.
I come to the question of internment—or detention as it is now politely known. My right hon. Friend will recall that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends divided the House on the question of internment when Mr. Faulkner first introduced it. When internment was being mooted early that August, I and some of my hon. Friends gave warnings about what would happen. The onus is upon my right hon. Friend to show that internment has succeeded.
I know that that is a negative argument and that one can never show what would have happened if those people had not been interned. But there have been more people, including British soldiers, killed, wounded and maimed, and there has been more property destroyed, since internment was introduced than there was before.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: My hon. Friend is using a negative argument. I visited Long Kesh when there were 1,200 internees there under the Special Powers Act. I thought at the time—and still think—that that was a great mistake. Changes have been made since then. Large numbers of internees were released by the Executive and by the previous administration, and the numbers went down. If the Act has weaknesses, as it has—and I will not go into the technicalities—is it the logic of my hon. Friend's argument that I should turn the 600 internees out on to the streets?

Mr. McNamara: I am coming to that. I am not trying to dodge that question. It is a point which I have consistently put in another capacity to people who have come before the House and in Committee


upstairs asking for an end to detention. That is a political judgment.
I want to turn to the point which was made eloquently in Committee and which can be summed up in this way: there may well be a case for detention or a case for diluted justice, but there is not a case for both. My right hon. Friend—and I use the expression "my right hon. Friend" to mean the Government—is maintaining both those positions. This I find very hard to understand. This is why I say we are shuffling off the responsibility.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: This is the most important way of discussing what my right hon. Friend and I deal with daily. I take my hon. Friend's point. Diluted justice comes within the sphere of my right hon. Friend and detention comes within mine. The more one could deal with cases under normal methods of justice the better.
Would my hon. Friend not agree, on the question of non-jury trial, that because of intimidation it may be necessary to have some limitation on normal justice, if not to the extent provided for in the Bill?

Mr. McNamara: I do not accept that. My right hon. Friend gave a catalogue of the people he has caused to be detained. Yet he has said that these people will be released if violence ends. The logic of that argument is that if one shoots a British soldier one will be detained, but if one shoots a British soldier and is convicted, one must serve the sentence. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will say that the convicted prisoners will be offered some sort of amnesty. We know there are people who want that. But my right hon. Friend will come to the gravamen of the argument, which is, "Faced with this situation, do I open the gates tomorrow and say All right, boys, you may go'"? Is my right hon. Friend saying, "You are in there indefinitely until you are carried out in a box"? That is the other side of my right hon. Friend's argument. At some time he will let those men out. Or will he not let them out until they leave in a box? That is the logic of the case. My right hon. Friend must answer that question.
We come back to the question of judgment. That is what it amounts to. It is my judgment that as a result of internment certain things have arisen and will continue. The first is the fact that

we have created a graduate school for terrorists on both sides of this divide. Secondly, one only increases the sense of grievance of people inside if their release is held up subject to the actions of people outside who they cannot always influence.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Some months ago I met leaders of the compounds at Long Kesh and the Maze. My hon. Friend may recall the argument put to me that those people regarded themselves as prisoners of war. I have heard that opinion expressed on many occasions.

Mr. McNamara: The Home Secretary, as he then was, said that we were at war with the IRA. He gave these men a status which in many ways they do not deserve. One is in an even more difficult position. They are liable to be called prisoners of war. They will acquire a status when the war is over.
My right hon. Friend cannot have it all ways. He has visited the children's wing in the Crumlin. He has seen young people there waiting to be allocated to various prisons, training schools and Borstals. Was the terrible thing said to him that was said to me by one person, that he wanted to go to Long Kesh because there he would be given special category status? This is what internment has led to.
A sense of grievance remains in the minority population and it is beginning to grow. My right hon. Friend will 'e now from his correspondence with the Unionists, as I know because it was said to me by the UWC, that it is maintained that people picked up on the street were only trade unionists doing their job. Disaffection is spreading in both communities.
The process started with a political gesture by Mr. Faulkner, who misconceived the situation on the basis of what had happened between 1956 and 1962. No matter how we change the names of the prisoners and the name of the system under which they are held, we still have internment. We therefore give an excuse to extremists on either side not to sit down and talk to their political representatives.

Mr. Rees: May I come to the basic point which I have to decide? Given the fault in the beginning—for which neither side of this House has responsibility—would my hon. Friend release


the 600 on to the streets and at the same time leave the Army there? That is the question that I have to answer—and I am, not begging, the question the other way round. I would do the one but I would not keep the Army there one moment in that situation, and if the Army were not there I believe that there would be problems. I would not allow soldiers to be there without protection of some sort. It could not be. I have to take that decision. My hon. Friend has to assume that he is taking it and give me the right answer.

Mr. McNamara: I must therefore ask my right hon. Friend which part of the Act he thinks will protect the Army. In all the things that I have said to my right hon. Friend, I have never said that the Army should lose the right to arrest and to detain for four hours, although that causes many grievances in the communities. Is it detention, trial without jury or the alteration of the onus of proof to which my right hon. Friend refers?

Mr. Rees: I tell my hon. Friend frankly, having operated this Act, that given the situation there and no sign of the response of a reduction in violence, I am referring to powers, however modified—there may be a case for that—of detention. I do not believe that the Army could stay there without some powers of that kind. I say that having operated the system and dealing with each case firmly myself.

Mr. McNamara: I accept that that is my right hon. Friend's judgment. What I am entitled to say is that the Army could operate from 1968 to 1971 without internment and operated with far less violence than was produced by the introduction of internment.
Here is an Act which we are being asked to renew, which contains many faults, some of which could be improved by merely dropping some provisions. There is a whole series of social and political reasons against detention.
We also have what I regard as a lack of honesty within the detention procedures. If I as Secretary of State detain a man because I regard him as dangerous, I do not pass it on to the chief constable or to commissioners or to appeal because that brings the whole law into disrepute. There are a host of arguments political,

judicial and practical as to why we should not renew the order. I do not believe that we should renew it.

10.50 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: This debate is of the utmost importance to all the people of Northern Ireland because it affects both communities. I have made my position absolutely clear on this matter, but let me tell the House what worries me. We have had put before the House some of the dark and terrible realities of the Northern Ireland situation. We have heard about the monstrous atrocities carried out by the terrorist organisations—and, in the main, by the Irish Republican Army.
In vivid language—language which must have brought this House to the stark realities of the dark shadow that lies across Northern Ireland—the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, having catalogued these terrible crimes, said that he had signed detention orders. He went on to say that if there were a response he would consider further releases. In other words, he made the point that if the violence came to an end, eventually all these people would be released. He was suggesting that people who had committed dastardly acts would escape without any punishment whatever.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: If it had been possible to carry out these proceedings through the normal courts of law, the situation would be different, but what happens if there are no normal processes of law? What the hon. Gentleman says does not weaken my argument but strengthens it. He talks of going through the normal process of law, but that assumes that society is normal.

Rev. Ian Paisley: But the process of law must be exhausted first. I agree that in an emergency terrorist situation special powers must be made available, but the commissioners' hearings have become an absolute farce. It must be emphasised that there must be a respect for the law. If the judicial process is seen to have become the farce it now is, there can be no respect for the judicial system.
Perhaps I may illustrate what I am saying by citing the case of a certain prisoner—whose name I will not mention because of his family—who in the Northern Ireland High Court was told by the


Lord Chief Justice that his word could not be taken since he was regarded as totally unreliable. The Lord Chief Justice told him that he could not accept his evidence. Yet on that person's evidence a man is in Long Kesh tonight.
When the man's evidence was presented before one of the commissioners, the counsel who pleaded his case pointed out to the commissioner what had been said about the man in the High Court action in Northern Ireland, and the commissioner refused to take his evidence. He said, "I cannot accept this witness as a credible witness. I will expunge from the record what he said." But another commissioner took a different attitude and said that he was prepared to accept that unreliable witness. Consequently, there is tonight a man detained in Long Kesh. How does that man feel towards society? That man can have no respect for the judicial system. Northern Ireland is a small place and, what is more, people are inter-related and inter-married. They are all affected when one of the family is detained.
We could have a long debate tonight about the very structure of Long Kesh and about things which go against the grain of any human being. Nobody knows more than I do that there are terrible difficulties.
However, I want to return to the time when internment was introduced in Northern Ireland and to say that it was introduced in the wrong manner. The Apprentice Boys of Derry were banned from marching—banned to please the Roman Catholics—and the Roman Catholics were interned by Mr. Faulkner to please the Protestants. A country cannot be run by placating one side and then placating the other. But it was in those circumstances that internment was introduced. Then came this Act. We all know what happened upstairs. The Tory Whip was annoyed with me because I was appointed by the Tory Party at that time to sit on the Committee, but I did not vote in the way which might have been expected of me because I had strong views about certain parts of the Act.
The argument tonight has tended to pinpoint detention, but there are other matters in the Act of which the House should take cognisance. When we destroyed or took away trial by jury in

Northern Ireland we helped weaken the people's respect for the judiciary. I want to put on record that I resented the way in which the Protestant community was slandered upstairs by the then Attorney-General who said that the Protestant community jurymen could not be relied on to do their duty. Jurymen come from a particular part of the community; not everybody serves on a jury. There is a property qualification. Jurymen have a stake in the community.
I made a protest about this matter in the Committee. I have today been refreshing my memory about those protracted committee meetings upstairs. I would like to see the jury system of trials restored in Northern Ireland as soon as possible.
It has been said that we cannot have a jury system because of intimidation, but I suggest that it is easy to get at a single judge—and judges have been shot at in Northern Ireland—and it is easy to get at witnesses, because witnesses become known, but that it is harder to get at juries because juries are picked, and in Northern Ireland they are picked by a long elimination process. It is not so easy to get at juries. The argument against juries has never been properly established. We asked the previous Attorney-General questions about juries. We have asked whether there have been perverted juries, and what was the extent of their perversion. We have a situation where, in discussing this Act, we are discussing many other matters than detention.
There is one question which I want to put to the Secretary of State. Has this Act worked? Are we defeating terrorists? Every morning, people in Northern Ireland wake up and listen to the early morning news, which is always a sad catalogue of what has happened during the night. I do not think that this Act as an instrument is effective in the defeat of terrorism in Northern Ireland. I readily admit that some special powers are necessary in a situation of this kind, but I believe that a better measure could be developed than this one.
I come back to the commissioners. A commissioner hears a case and signs an order to detain a man. The man then goes before other commissioners on appeal, and he is still detained. That being the case, how can the Secretary of


State suddenly decide that the man can be let out? This has happened. Men have had hearings before commissioners, have appealed and lost, and then as a result of executive action they have been released. I wonder about the evidence that was presented to the commissioners and how it could have changed suddenly so that the Secretary of State was able to let the men out.
The Secretary of State has asked whether we want every door in Long Kesh suddenly opened, allowing all the detainees to spill out. I think that means must be devised whereby those who are considered to be guilty of crime are brought before the courts. We have diluted justice, with special terrorists' courts being set up, and the onus of proof is changed. There is no jury. There is a single judge. But if such a system is established, it should be used to the full. Every person who is thought to be guilty should be brought before such courts. When, and only when, that type of law is exhausted, if the Secretary of State thinks that a person is a danger to the community, the right hon. Gentleman can exercise internment. In such a case, he will be responsible, and no one else, and he is answerable to this House for his action.
At present, if I talk to the Secretary of State about a case, he says that it has gone before a commissioner, the commissioner has said, "No", the case has gone to appeal, and the appeal has been dismissed, and he adds, "But I will look at the papers." But if I am able to say to him, "You are responsible. Why has this been done?", I can argue the case on behalf of the person concerned. Internment is a running sore in the Province. There are differences of opinion among Protestants about it, but that is a fact that this House must grasp.
I and my colleagues do not propose to vote at the conclusion of this debate. But I say to the right hon. Gentleman that if at the end of this period he has not brought in some amending legislation to deal with this matter in an effective manner, we shall have to vote solidly against any further extension of these powers.
There may be hon. Members who feel that they have to vote against this order. That is a matter for their consciences. But this is a serious matter. It is one

that this House needs to study with great care. I regret that these powers are being renewed without any amendment. I regret that nothing has been done. I welcome the fact that Lord Gardiner is to hear submissions, and my party will be putting certain submissions to his committee. We shall encourage those in Northern Ireland who have serious grievances in their minds to go before the committee to put forward their arguments.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) began his speech rather like an Old Testament prophet on the doctrine of retribution—or was it vengeance? After that I agreed with much of what he said about Long Kesh. The truth is that until one has been there and seen those acres of barbed wire and the young people marching and being told about arms training, one has no idea of what it is like.
I want to start my speech with a factual question. A lot has been said about Long Kesh. But what is happening about the women's gaol in Armagh? This nineteenth century gaol, with all these young women cooped up in it, is in a sense quite as anger-making as Long Kesh.
I will not go in detail into the letter written to me by my right hon. Friend on 26th June about the case of Miss McKee other than to make one point. It does not seem satisfactory that so many months should elapse between the visits of the various commissioners. Therefore, may I ask whether there are any plans for reviewing the situation in the Armagh women's prison in the same way as has been suggested for Long Kesh?
The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) made me terribly uneasy. However, I will not go into the Lobby with him tonight because I think that my right hon. Friend has achieved something. It may be only a start, it may be only a pioneer project, and certainly it is no panacea. However, he has released seven people from Long Kesh today.
I do not underrate this achievement. I suspect—my right hon. Friend cannot say this, but I can—that it was done in the


teeth of the most fierce opposition by the chiefs of staff, for very understandable reasons. The chiefs of staff could say, "Our soldiers are risking their lives to get certain suspects into Long Kesh and off the streets and you, the civilian politicians, are letting them out." That is a heck of a thing with which to confront any Secretary of State, because the morale of the British Army is at stake.
By an act of considerable political will the Secretary of State, undoubtedly backed by the Cabinet, has overcome the strong feelings of the chiefs of staff. This is a considerable success. Therefore, having listened carefully to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central and having observed this gesture and act of successful political will, as I interpret it, on behalf of the Government, I cannot bring myself to go into the Lobby against the order.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: I was hoping to get further support from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, because it is all too rare that Northern Ireland politicians elected to this House can find any area on which to agree. I certainly agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).
Last year and the year before I sat in this House and listened to the different sentiments which were then being expressed. I remember the apologetic way in which the Conservative Government introduced the legislation. I understand the reasons why they were apologetic. The Labour Party, which I support, was then in Opposition. Hon. Members of the then Opposition were more than apologetic. They showed their total and vehement opposition to the legislation. I was a member of the Committee on the Bill which is now an Act. I have with me copies of the debates in Committee. If the Secretary of State, the Attorney-General and the Minister of State were to read what they said then, they would know that opinions cannot be changed as quickly as that.

Mr. McNamara: I hope that my hon. Friend and I will be going the same way later tonight. But, in fairness to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, we should look very carefully at what he

said in those debates about internment and detention. My hon. Friend will have noted that I did not quote what my right hon. Friend said then because he argued with the same consistency tonight. On every other of those points, however, he was with us.

Mr. Fitt: I am being rather more specific than my hon. Friend has been. I was prepared to look at the votes on Divisions in Committee. In all those Divisions there was complete unanimity by the Labour Members and myself. Many of the decisions were taken by the casting vote of the Conservative Chairman of the Committee. Things have not changed as dramatically as would enable my right hon. Friends, in all consistency and in all conscience, to have an attitude now that is completely different from that which they then adopted. Surely the Attorney-General cannot have changed his previous position on the abolition of jury trials in Northern Ireland. He previously put forward very cogent reasons why they should not be abolished. He said that if they were abolished in one part of the United Kingdom, the repercussions would be felt throughout the rest of the United Kingdom.
We all put forward our cases then in all conscience. The questions which must be asked now are these: first, are my right hon. Friends the Attorney-General, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State convinced that they were wrong then and that they are right now? Or are they saying that it was purely politics which animated them in expressing the sentiments which were expressed in that Committee? If these questions are not asked by hon. Members, they are being asked by people throughout Northern Ireland.
As the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said, detention does not affect only the man who is detained. It affects all his relatives. That is why the Catholic community and, for the first time, many of the majority community are beginning to understand just how divisive and contentious detention can become.
I have certain questions to put in the light of the Secretary of State's opening remarks. In justifying detention and internment—and they are the same thing—is he saying that they are continuing because of the horrible crimes of


violence? He referred to the case of a 15-year-old boy who was abducted from a detention centre in Northern Ireland and brutally murdered, allegedly by the Provisional IRA, because he was suspected of giving information to the security forces. He said that detention was resorted to in the case of the murder of three soldiers on the Antrim Road not far from my home. He said that detention was ordered when the Rathcoole murders took place and when there were murders at the Abbey meat factory.
How does he know that the people concerned were involved in these cases? Both Protestant and Catholic extremists are involved. What information did my right hon. Friend get and where did he get it? It enabled him and his predecessors to sign these ICOs. Is it a fact that five people—and this matter affects me personally—were detained in Long Kesh on suspicion of having murdered Senator Paddy Wilson at about this time last year? Is it a fact that two of these people were subsequently released by the commissioners and are now free? If that is so, it proves that there is no case for having the commissioners. If it is known that people have been engaged in murder, people against whom the Army has laid information, and those people are then released by the commissioners—and the Secretary of State is powerless to do anything about the matter—why were they detained in the first place? Either we accept that the commissioners are stupid and do not know their job because they are releasing murderers on the streets, or, if that is not the case, there is no justification for having the commissioners in the first place.
There have been quite a number of men arrested and detained by the Army, taken to an interrogation centre—Castlereagh is the current location—and ICOs have been signed against them. They are then brought before the commissioner within 28 days. Some hon. and right hon. Members might think in terms only of 28 days, but the actual period can be much greater. It can run into months and years. At the first hearing the commissioners might find that the person has not been involved in an offence and he is released. But what has happened to that person in the meantime? He might be a Catholic working for a Protestant employer, which would be the majority of

cases, or he might be a Protestant working for a Catholic employer. Once he has been suspected of having had a part in an illegal organisation, he loses his job. No firm can afford to do without an employee for a period of five, six, seven or eight months.
Once a detainee is released from detention he is a marked man. No matter how innocent he may have been, there is always the suspicion that he was involved on the side of either Republican or Protestant extremism. His life is in danger after he has been released. People who have been released at their very first hearing before the commissioners find that their lives are in danger and that they have lost their jobs. Their children and wives are suffering, and there is no provision for compensation.
That was one of the matters we discussed at length in Committee. We opposed the previous Government because we believed that some form of compensation should be paid to a person who was arrested and detained and subsequently found to have been totally innocent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), ably supported by the hon. Member for Antrim, North, was correct to say that this is not only a question of detention and internment. There are 31 sections and five schedules in the Act. In the years to come this Parliament will not feel proud that it had to put such legislation on the statute book. It has always laid claim to be the protector of democracies and the whole democratic concept not only in this country but throughout the world. The order is a matter for which it will never have reason to forgive itself.

The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin): My hon. Friend will recall that the argument when the Bill was being considered was very much a question of "Do you have detention or a diluted form of justice?", as I described it. My hon. Friend may say that we do not need either. If he does not, it is his duty to tell the House which of them he opts for. We have heard this argument of attack from several hon. Members on both sides of the House in the debate, but none has yet told us. "I would choose this and not the other".

Mr. Fitt: My right hon. and learned Friend puts forward a reasonable point of view. I do not believe that the Act has in any way contributed to peace in Northern Ireland. That is the reality of the situation. Even though it might include the people who were involved in the murder of Senator Paddy Wilson, I would advocate that the detention centres be opened and the slate be wiped clean, and I would be hoping against hope that that would in some way lead to a new political impetus.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I know that this point matters to my hon. Friend perhaps even more than to Members on the Opposition benches, although I do not know where they live. The hon. Gentleman lives in conditions at the bottom of Antrim Road in which I should not like to live. I am not making a cheap point here, but, given that fact, would he agree that the British Army should be left in the area?

Mr. Fitt: That was the point that I was about to make. I must relate the attitude of the British Army to detention, emergency provisions and to the political strike that took place in Northern Ireland some three or four weeks ago. I would never have thought that it could ever be envisaged in the United Kingdom that the Army would dictate to the Government, whatever political colour the Government might be. I would never have believed it possible that the Army would dictate.
I am now saying that it is my firm belief that the Army was reluctant to take action during the course of the strike which brought about the downfall of the Executive and the Sunningdale Agreement. It may be that some Northern Ireland hon. Members on the Opposition benches did not have a great deal of faith in the Sunningdale Agreement or the Executive, but it is my feeling—and I say this with some knowledge of what I am talking about—that if the Army had acted sooner, the Executive would still be in existence. I do not say that in a personal sense.
I believe that the Army is now saying to the British Government, "If you release the internees we are leaving Northern Ireland tomorrow." If the Government believe that that is the right political decision to take, they will have to take that decision. When an army is in a position to dictate to the Govern

ment, we are getting to a dangerous state. It is something which we have never heard or thought we would hear of in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I think that it is important to get this absolutely right. During the days of the Ulster Workers' Council political strike my hon. Friend knows that the Executive—and my hon. Friend was the Deputy Leader—made a request to the Government for the movement of petrol to a certain number of stations. I issued that instruction to the Army and it was carried out. On no occasion did the Army say "No" to any request that I made of it. I am not going into the wider argument of how we should deal with an industrial dispute in the electricity industry or with detention. I have the job of giving orders to the British Army and there has been no occasion on which it has refused to carry them out.

Mr. Fitt: I hope fervently that that will continue to be the position.

Mr. Rees: I hope that my hon. Friend will take my word.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: But does the hon. Gentleman accept it?

Mr. Fitt: I do not accept it fully. I would be less than honest if I did not inform the House of my reservations in view of what I know has happened in Northern Ireland. I know that the release of internees is a major problem as a result of the Army's attitude. I am not saying, and I have never said, that every internee was completely innocent of the charges brought against him. I have never said that and I would not dare to say that now. I could go on to say that there may be some internees who are guilty of some crimes, but we have heard what my right hon. Friend has said tonight. He has listed a catalogue of offences. If there were not people in Northern Ireland who were absolutely convinced that the people who were responsible for the Abbey meat factory murder, the Rathcoole murders, the 15year-old boy murder, the murder of the three soldiers and the murder of Paddy Wilson were those who have been interned, there would be such opposition that the running sore of internment would not exist.
I repeat what I said earlier. The Secretary of State has said that as an earnest of his intention he has released seven internees. I cannot accept that as an earnest of his intention. The figure is derisory in Northern Ireland terms. It will not be accepted by anyone. At least the Conservative administration, following the Sunningdale Agreement released 65 internees. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) on the Opposition Front Bench will know that the figure of 65 was treated with derision. How much worse will it be when the figure is only seven? I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it would be better to release no one until he is in a position to release a substantial number.
Many people were detained on 9th August 1971, and they cannot be blamed for any of the bombings and murders that have taken place in the three most tragic years that we have had since then. I suggest that as an earnest of the intentions of this Government the right hon. Gentleman should release those people who were interned originally on 9th August 1971. I could accept that, and the people of Northern Ireland could accept it. The slate could be wiped clean, and we could get rid of all the antagonisms and hostilities that have existed for so long in Northern Ireland between the minority population and those who formed the Unionist Government prior to the imposition of direct rule.
I am not a member of the Labour Government, but I have supported them since I came to the House and I shall continue to do so on all the major issues—and tomorrow will be another example, with the debate on the Bill to repeal the Industrial Relations Act. But on this occasion I can speak only for my constituents in Northern Ireland, and I shall be voting against the Government tonight.

11.31 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I have only just come into the Chamber, and I have heard only part of the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). I realise the gravity of the problems that are being discussed, but I was a little disturbed, because the hon. Member does not speak simply as a back bencher on this matter. He does not talk without some sort of authority, and I think that it is an unhappy thing that it

should be left on the record that when the Minister responsible has given an undertaking that at no time did the Army refuse to carry out political instructions, or neglect to carry them out, or carry them out with reluctance, the hon. Member for Belfast, West still speaks with a double voice.
After listening to the right hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member said that he hoped that what the right hon. Gentleman had said would continue to be the case, and then he said that he did not accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement in its entirety. The hon. Member's views would not have been important if he had been talking as an ordinary back bencher and had not been closely associated with these matters, and if he had been talking more or less from instinct, or a hunch, but in view of the authoritative position that he held as deputy in the Executive until only a few weeks ago I feel that the record should have it straight: are the hon. Member's doubts justified, or should be accept completely and entirely the undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I want to make it clear that any instructions that have been given to the Army have been carried out.

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Stan Newens: I listened with considerable sympathy to the case put forward by my right hon. Friend this evening, and I want to place on record the admiration that I have for the courage, energy and dedication that he and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State have consistently shown in their endeavours to bring peace and political progress to Northern Ireland.
I also want to point out that I am utterly horrified by the relapse into barbarity in Northern Ireland, illustrated by the catalogue of acts of violence, viciousness, inhumanity and murder—not only those acts referred to by my right hon. Friend but the many other instances of which hon. Members are only too well aware.
I have nothing in common with these methods. I should not dare to offer any justification for the crimes that have been perpetrated, whether by the Provisional IRA, the official IRA, paramilitary Protestant groups, paranoic


murderers, or anybody else. Unfortunately, however, the emergency provisions for internment just have not worked, and we have to face that fact this evening. The violence has not ceased, sectarian strife has not diminished, and in those circumstances we must ask ourselves whether we shall bring peace and progress to Northern Ireland by perpetuating what has been done for the last couple of years.
In 1969, I visited Northern Ireland as part of a Labour Party delegation. I am one of those hon. Members of this House who, because of their interest in a number of these problems, have been associated with efforts to raise the issue of civil rights in Northern Ireland. I believe that the present state of affairs and the inhumanity that one sees in Northern Ireland have arisen because for too long we were prepared to push on one side the civil injustices and the denial of human rights to people in that area.
What does internment do to the people about whom we are concerned tonight? I believe that it imparts a heroic quality to the inmates of the camps; that it makes them heroes in the eyes of their own communities. We can therefore say that at best it converts thugs into heroes, and at worst it results in the unjust detention of men who should not be there and so creates a feeling of injustice which spreads throughout the community.
My right hon. Friends did not introduce the system of internment, they inherited it, but if they soldier on with it in the way that appears likely, in the long run, in the eyes of history, the responsibility for the system will be foisted upon them. They should therefore think carefully about the situation and realise that upon their shoulders may be placed the responsibility for all that may ensue as a result of internment.
The reputation of Britain has been besmirched by what has occurred in Northern Ireland. We have allowed a precedent to be created which may be used in other parts of the United Kingdom to deny civil liberties to people. We must, therefore, ensure that an effort is made to depart from the road along which we are now travelling.
I would have preferred some sort of package deal. I understand it when my right hon. Friend says that, if only the men of violence would stop, he would be prepared to end internment. I know that that is a sincere statement. Unless we take the initial step it may be that violence will not be ended. My right hon. Friend quoted cases of people whom he said have nothing that could be described as political motivation. I ask him to think seriously whether internment stopped such people. We have to try to create an atmosphere in which such people can be tried and put behind bars as, unfortunately, we have to put others behind bars, so that the whole community can see that they are guilty and deserve to be there, instead of being allowed, in some cases, to masquerade as heroes.
We must recognise that in all civil wars, and in Northern Ireland we have a suppressed civil war, terrible crimes are committed. History demonstrates that men are prepared to commit the most heinous crimes and at the same time to risk the most barbaric punishments when they believe that they are doing something in the name of a cause. The history of struggles in many parts of the world shows that however terrible the punishment may be—and it is by no means the most terrible punishment which the British Government are carrying out—it does not work.
There is no way out from the present impasse of violence and strife by maintaining internment and the panoply of emergency provisions. I do not believe that the only way forward is to abolish them at a stroke. What is necessary is some sort of package deal. If these provisions are approved once again without voices being raised to express the sort of sentiments I am expressing, it would be greatly to the detriment of future hopes for dealing with the issue.
I hope my right hon. Friend will understand that many of us who feel very strongly about this, and are taking a strong line, do so not because we feel a complete lack of sympathy with what he is seeking to do. It is because we believe that in our action lies the only way forward in Northern Ireland. I certainly believe that the only argument he can adduce here that will convince many of


us that it is necessary to carry on with these powers is that they will stop future violence. I do not believe that he has done that. I do not believe it is possible to demonstrate that, and in those circumstances we ought to recognise that these powers ought not to be renewed. We very much hope that they will soon go, so that we shall be able to make a new effort to deal with this tangled and terrible problem.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. William van Straubenzee: No hon. Member on either side of the House could possibly complain about the House looking closely at an order of this kind, which is of fundamental importance. I am probably the only speaker in this debate who can claim to be totally consistent.

Mr. McNamara: No.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I except the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). He was a persistent nuisance to me, as he has been to his own party—as he is entitled to be to both.

Mr. McNamara: Nonsense.

Mr. van Straubenzee: The hon. Gentleman had better go to bed if he is getting tired. When we come down to it, we shall find that there is more in common between the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) and myself than he might suppose.
I would be less than human—although I am a kindly man, as the Attorney-General and the Secretary of State know—if I did not pause to reflect on the irony of something I said to the Attorney-General coming true. Last summer towards the end of the long-drawn-out proceedings to which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central referred, I said to the Attorney-General that the time might come when I should be listening to him recommending to the House the extension of the procedures which he had with considerable ability and great assiduity opposed throughout, as had the Secretary of State. That experience has within it the most terrible warning for Oppositions. The Opposition never know when they may find themselves in Government. Nowadays it is wise to be cautious about what one

says in Opposition. In my friendly, kindly way, I will leave it at that.
At Question Time on 27th June, in answer to a Question from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), the Minister of State said that there could not be amendments to the Act by way of the orders but that there could be deletions. That is a clear and unexceptionable statement of fact, but from it I gained the clear impression, as I suspect did other hon. Members, that there would be deletions. I am not complaining, because I do not think that there should be deletions. We all know that the Minister of State would not intentionally mislead the House, but he may unintentionally have misled the House, and some difficulties may have arisen from that.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: There could easily have been deletions. Because of the minor nature of one or two of the deletions I thought it better to leave it to the Gardiner Committee. I accept full responsibility for that.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I realise that the Secretary of State has responsibility, but I think that some of the difficulties arose out of that statement.
Since the Government took office it has been borne fully upon them that the powers contained in the Act, unpleasant as they are, are absolutely necessary to the operation in Northern Ireland. I never hid from the House, and nor did my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers)—who with me piloted the Bill through the Committee—how distasteful we, as lawyers, felt the Bill to be.
When the Attorney-General replies, I hope that he will make one thing clear. When the Secretary of State referred to "certain releases" he meant the release of detainees. He spoke of rehabilitation. That also referred to detainees.
This is very important. I suspect there are some hon. Members of the House who have the impression that the Maze prison is concerned solely with detainees. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) might well give that impression; "acres and acres of cages", as I remember his words; "young people drilling" was another phrase he used. There are young prisoners who are not detainees in the Maze prison.


There are substantial numbers of special category prisoners in the Maze prison who are permitted to wear ordinary civilian clothes, and who to the uninitiated, casual observer might appear to belong to the same category. I do not suggest that the hon. Member was uninitiated. He took care to distinguish one cage from another. It is important, however, that that impression should not get abroad. I do not think the Secretary of State intended to interfere with the sentences legally imposed upon special category prisoners who were convicted.
The right hon. Member indicates his disagreement with the proposition that he should release special category prisoners. I am sure that is right. They have been through due process and courts of law. They have been convicted. Their sentences should be followed through in the usual way. It has been helpful that that should be made clear. We refer only to detainees.
I refer next to the speech of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). He has changed his position on this matter. He now thinks that it would be preferable, out of two disagreeable alternatives, to return to internment at the behest of a Minister rather than to detention with a form of legal process. That was not his original view. I have a cutting here to remind us. The hon. Member will recall that when Diplock and his colleagues first reported, he welcomed the report and said that at times stern measures were necessary to deal with terrorism. He added that many of the Diplock proposals had been put to the then Secretary of State by himself and his own political associates.
Since that time he has taken a different view. I believe that he is wrong. I do not care for internment at the behest of the Minister. I do not positively care for detention with a form of legal process. But I have no doubt that the second is preferable to the first. It is in the interests of those concerned that there should be a form of legal process even if it falls well short of what generally we would regard as acceptable.
When I wound up the recent defence debate I told of an experience of mine. It was directly relevant to the dis

cussions we had then. I give it very shortly again. As we cannot read each other's speeches, it may be worth repeating. It sums up well the problem faced by the Secretary of State.
I gave as an example my experience then of having close dealings with a battalion of the Parachute Regiment who were at that time, and subsequently, in the Ardoyne. I told of how bitterly those young men resented the allegation that they were uncivilised and boors, and how admirably they conducted themselves and brought peace to a difficult part of Belfast. I had been approached by leading members of the Roman Catholic community from that part of Belfast asking me to use such influence as I had for the tour of the paratroopers to be extended because they had brought peace and because "the bad men were locked up in Long Kesh". When a deputation from the National Council for Civil Liberties came to see me—not, on this issue, a very balanced deputation—and we were discussing why the Ardoyne was so peaceful and the lights were on. one of those concerned said, "The bad men are in Long Kesh." I said, "Exactly."
This is the difficulty facing the Secretary of State, as it faced his predecessor. He has been getting a statistical reduction in incidents—this has not been as fully brought out as it might have been—but to achieve that he must have the equipment first, of trial by one judge. The account given by the previous Attorney-General of the misuse of justice by juries, I think, totally convinced the House. There must also be certain powers of search for the Army and there must be powers of detention.
Every country which has had some form of detention has faced the problem of how to phase it out. It is instructive to look at the experience of other countries. Kindly reference has been made to the initiative of the previous Secretary of State in releasing 65 detainees towards the end of the year. It would help us—I should be the last, of course, to press Ministers on security matters if it was their judgment that details should not be disclosed—if the Attorney-General could tell us how many of those 65 have been redetained or charged.
The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) feeling very deeply about this


matter, just as we on this side do, said, unlike the hon. Member for Belfast West (Mr. Fitt), that it was not practicable to release every detainee at once. He was taking an appropriately pragmatic view. He was pressing for quick action—I do not want to put words into his mouth—but he was not saying that every detainee should be immediately released. In that he was right. The problem for Ministers is not the principle of releasing them—no Minister of any Government I can imagine in this country wants detention for an unlimited period—but the question of scale and timing, of how many of those released may demonstrably return to the previous practice of bombing and shooting for political and other ends.
There are some hon. Members who should do as the Secretary of State has said he does—spend a period with the Army out around the streets and reflect that we are asking the soldiers to act within the law. We must be virtually the only nation in the world—this is sometimes a sore point with the soldiers—who, faced with an insurrection of this kind, rightly ask our young men to risk their lives but to act within the law. Almost any other nation I can think of would have allowed them to go outside the law.
But if we are to require that discipline of them—and in my view it is a right and proper discipline, and in my experience the great majority of them accept that it is necessary—we in this House must make sure that we give them the appropriate legal armoury. That is our half of the compact with these young men whose lives are at risk at our behest and on the Secretary of State's instructions.
When one is in the position of a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or of one of his Ministers and is responsible for the lives of these young men, one has to make a judgment in favour of giving them a legal framework rather than the reverse. The Secretary of State cannot be criticised for so doing, and we shall support him in the difficult judgment which he has to make.

12.1 a.m.

The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin): What we are discussing tonight is whether this House should renew for a period of six months, and six months only—although a further renewal could

take place—the provisions of the 1973 Act. We are considering the order against the background that the present Government have set up a committee of inquiry under the chairmanship of a most distinguished Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner, and containing among its members persons of the greatest possible experience both of the conditions in Northern Ireland and generally of the law and of human rights.
It is wrong for anybody to suggest that what we are now doing is giving our accolade to this Act as though we took the view that it were something that should stand for all time. The very point of asking for a renewal for six months only when we could have asked for renewal for a longer period is due to our hope that before the six-month period is up the committee chaired by the noble Lord will be able to give the House its report and that we shall be able to act on it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said that future Parliaments would not be proud of this legislation. I agree with him that this is not the kind of legislation which any Parliament wishes to see on the statute book—nor are the conditions which made this legislation essential in some form or other, whether or not we agree with all of it, such as we can be proud of.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said he hoped that it would be possible to restore as soon as possible the full and ordinary right of trial. I agree with him. I have said time and again in the past that what we were dealing with in terms of Part I of the Act was a form of diluted justice. We had to satisfy ourselves by the closest questioning of the Government of the day whether each individual clause of the Bill, as it then was, was necessary and whether every part of every clause was necessary. I am sure the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) will not take the view that anything less than the fullest possible inquiry and diligence on the part of the opposition in those circumstances would have been justified.
When we come to the question of renewal there are a number of major dilemmas. There is a major dilemma on the question whether the conditions that


exist today are such that legislation of this kind needs to be on the statute book at all. Everything that has been said tonight, and everything that we know about conditions in Northern Ireland—conditions of terrorism and intimidation—must surely indicate that something is necessary to enable certain people to be either kept out of harm's way or brought to justice. Those people may have friends who can intimidate witnesses, juries or judges, or anyone else connected with a case. Some are people against whom one cannot mount a case under the judicial provisions of the Act, and they have to be dealt with under the other procedure. That is the first dilemma, and I hope that there will not be any real difference of opinion about that.
The second major dilemma which has been referred to in the debate is the question whether, given that there are those conditions and that there must be special legislation to deal with them, it is necessary that we should have both a system of detention or internment and a system, such as we have in Part I of the Act, in which the normal safeguards of trial by jury and the various rules which we are used to in this country are watered down. Is it necessary to have both of these, as well as the soldiers who are there to protect the population of Northern Ireland from violence and intimidation? In listening to some of my hon. Friends, and to the hon. Member for Antrim, North, I thought how easy it always is to attack first one Part of the Act and then the other Part, and, in that way, to give an impression that one can dispose of one Part or another, yet never to come down to the particular Part which they suggest should be disposed of. I got the impression from my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West—I may have misunderstood him on this, because he did not seem to complete the point in which case he will correct me—that because he was so concerned to end internment or detention he would be prepared to accept something less in terms of the judicial process.
If the position is that one thing or the other is necessary, I think it is right that hon. Members who speak against the order should say plainly what they think ought to be done awa ywith. If they are not able to give an answer to that which

is a perfectly reasonable stance, they ought to be prepared to say that it is perfectly right and proper, and indeed necessary, that a body such as the Gardiner Committee—with experts who have experience of conditions in Northern Ireland and who wish to see the maximum amount of human rights and civil liberties in Northern Ireland, consistent with the situation there—ought at least to be given the task of advising the House, first, on the dilemmas involved and, secondly, on other matters that have to be considered in relation to the detailed provisions of the Act.

Mr. McNamara: My right hon. and learned Friend will recall that in Committee he came down strongly in favour of one side of that dilemma. Why does he now recommend that that should go to the Gardiner Committee? Will he advise the Government to that effect?

The Attorney-General: What I may advise the Government is a matter between me and the Government. I am saying that, whatever my personal judgment is it may not be correct, and that it is reasonable that my judgment and that of the Secretary of State and the Government should be subject to the detailed examination that will be given to all these procedures by the committee and that, at the end, we should be in a position, having read the committee's report, to make up our minds in a more informed way as between the two possibilities. It may even be that we shall have to accept something on the lines of both parts of the Act. I hope that that will not be necessary. But, before we have that report, I do not see how we can make an informed judgment and cast away completely one or the other.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that it is not just the task of that committee to scrutinise legislative suggestions? Is not it the job of the legislature itself to scrutinise, and are not we doing that tonight?

Mr. Silkin: Of course it is a function of the legislature, and the legislature will decide, if the House Passes this order, after having had the most careful study made by the Gardiner Committee, helped by those actually engaged in doing the work on both parts of the Act in


Northern Ireland. I have already seen a number of the memoranda which may be produced to the Gardiner Committee and I have been asked by the committee to give it my own views.
At the end, I hope that an informed report will be placed before the House upon which hon. Members will be able to make up their minds and exercise their judgments. In the end, it will be for the House to make up its mind what should be done. In considering that, the House has to bear in mind that the provisions of the Act are such that we can renew it as a whole or with the omission of certain parts—but we cannot amend it. From what I have seen in the three or four months in which I have been Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, I believe that it may be necessary eventually to put forward amendments to the Act in the form of a Bill which will have to go through Parliament in the ordinary way. It may be found that it will not be a matter simply of omitting here and there, and otherwise renewing the Act.
I have spoken of the major dilemmas, but I invite the House to consider one or two of the minor dilemmas on which we hope to have the views of Lord Gardiner's committee.
Dealing with detention, in Part II, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) said that he regarded detention as a purely administrative matter and did not want it dressed up as though it were something different by the system of commissioners and the complications to be found in the schedule dealing with detention. That is an understandable view. The hon. Member for Antrim, North holds a similar view.
In that context, the Gardiner Committee will have to consider whether it is right that people should be subject to administrative detention and that their fate should be in the hands of the Secretary of State and his Department, without any possibility of telling some independent person, or body, "You have the wrong man. You have made a mistake. You should be seeking someone else for the offence which is the occasion for the order which has been made."
I take the view that that kind of procedure is desirable, but my hon. Friend takes a different view. That matter can properly be dealt with by the Gardiner

Committee. I hope that my hon. Friend will put his views to the Gardiner Committee, so that it may properly consider that matter.

Mr. McNamara: The Gardiner Committee can be made aware of my views, because they are stated clearly in the records of this House. My right hon. and learned Friend said that an individual may say to the commissioners, "You have got the wrong man." How can an individual say that, if he is refused access to the evidence that has put him there in the first place, as can happen?

The Attorney-General: I am fully aware of the difficulties of this procedure. It is a matter for consideration whether the procedure is or is not of value. That is a matter on which the Gardiner Committee may be able to help us.
Perhaps I may cite another example.

Mr. Arthur Latham: Before my right hon. and learned Friend goes on, may I put one point to him? The Secretary of State said that the Attorney-General would deal with this point in his remarks. Some of us found it difficult, and others found it impossible, to accept the idea of imprisonment by the Executive, even for a month. I understand that, in practice, because of delays of between three and six months before the commissioners hear cases, there is imprisonment by the Executive for not one month but periods extending from four to seven months, which is even more unacceptable. Will my right hon. and learned Friend comment on that point?

The Attorney-General: I was about to come to that point on the review procedure, because that procedure affects what my hon. Friend said. I agree that it is intolerable that someone who may not be the right person to be detained for a particular matter should be held in custody for as long as seven months before coming before a commissioner to put his case and then, perhaps, being released. Nobody can defend that situation. However, there are a number of reasons why this may happen. They are reasons concerned partly with the small number of commissioners' courts—although the number is being increased—but, most of all, with the immense strain that is being imposed on the legal profession in Northern Ireland, which is unable


to cope with all the proceedings with which it has to deal.
That brings me to the dilemma which I hope the House will accept is a proper dilemma for the Gardiner Committee to examine. We do not accept that it is right that people should be held for seven months without trial, but what is contributing largely to that situation is the provision in the schedule that, in addition to the administrative review by the Secretary of State, there is the automatic review by a commissioner after a person has been in detention for a year. We know that if the review procedure by commissioners were got rid of it would be possible to reduce the delay considerably from seven months for the initial hearing. Therefore, we must consider whether that is the right course to take.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) will be aware that many people will say that to abandon a system of review of that kind is to abandon one of the proper safeguards of the citizen. A further dilemma for the Gardiner Committee to consider is whether the greater evil is delay or the abandonment of that safeguard.
I shall not go through the Act and recite the various matters that might have been omitted. We have considered a number of sections very carefully indeed—that is why my right hon. Friend the Minister of State gave the reply that he did which has been referred to—to see whether it was possible to omit parts of the Act, when renewing it in this way, without doing violence to the Gardiner Committee's consideration, the benefit of which we shall ultimately have. Although there are no doubt sections which we could have omitted—indeed, we could have done so in some cases purely as a matter of window dressing—we did not think that it would be right to do that. Having given very full consideration to each of the sections that were under review, we thought that it would be better, in the long run, that the Gardiner Committee should look at the Act as a whole

and report to the House, because the Committee may well take the view that certain sections need to be amended and certain need to be improved. We thought that it would not be right, in cases in which we thought that there was a possibility of omitting sections altogether, to take that step.

I hope, therefore, that the House will take the view that we have, on balance, taken the right course here. There is a great deal in the Act that needs careful study by the legislature, but with the help of an expert committee to assist it in reaching the right conclusions on these various matters.

Whatever doubts some hon. Members may have about certain parts of the Act, I ask the House to allow it to continue for this further period of six months, giving the undertaking that the Gardiner Committee will make its report as rapidly as possible and that when the Government have considered that report they will be in a position to come forward with proposals for whatever new legislation is required. One hopes that they will do so in a very much better atmosphere in Northern Ireland than exists today, and in the light of the political solutions which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned earlier today.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Mr. van Straubenzee rose—

The Attorney-General: I was about to answer, as far as I could, the hon. Member for Wokingham, who expressed uncertainties about the effect of the policy of release from detention. I cannot give him an answer tonight as to how many of those who were released before Christmas have been re-detained. There have been some. I undertake to see that the hon. Gentleman gets an answer within the next two or three days. I hope that that will suffice. I hope that with that assurance both he and his hon. Friends will join myself and my hon. Friends in supporting the order.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 98, Noes 17.

Division No. 70.]
AYES
[12.23 a.m.


Archer, Peter
Brown, Bob (Newcastle upon Tyne, W.)
Cox, Thomas


Armstrong, Ernest
Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Crawshaw, Richard


Beith, A. J.
Buchan, Norman
Cunningham, Dr. John A.(Whiteh'v'n)


Bishop, E. S.
Carmichael, Neil
Dalyell, Tam


Boardman, H.
Cocks, Michael
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Booth, Albert
Coleman, Donald
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)




Deakins, Eric
Lawrence, Ivan
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Dormand, J. D.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. S. C. (S'hwark, Dulwich)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Small, William


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Lyons, Edward (Bradford. W.)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Eadie, Alex
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Spearing, Nigel


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Maclennan, Robert
Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)


English, Michael
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Strang, Gavin


Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)
Marks, Kenneth
Tinn, James


George, Bruce
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Tomlinson, John


Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian (Ch'sh' &amp; Amsh'm)
Meacher, Michael
Urwin, T. W.


Golding, John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Grant, John (Islington, C.)
Millan, Bruce
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hamling, William
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Watkins, David


Hardy, Peter
Murray, Ronald King
Weatherill, Bernard


Harper, Joseph
Oakes, Gordon
Whitlock, William


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orme, Rt. Hn. Stanley
Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)


Hatton, Frank
Ovenden, John
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)


Hawkins, Paul
Owen, Dr. David
Winstanley, Dr. Michael


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Winterton, Nicholas


Hunter, Adam
Pavitt, Laurie
Woodall, Alec


John, Brynmor
Pendry, Tom
Young, David (Bolton, E.)


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Perry, Ernest G.
Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)


Jopling, Michael
Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)



Judd, Frank
Radice, Giles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lamborn, Harry
Rees, Rt. Hn. Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Mr. Walter Johnson and


Lamond, James
Roper, John
Mr. James A. Dunn




NOES


Atkinson, Norman
McGuire, Michael
Stallard, A. W.


Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, M.)
Madden, M. O. F.
Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)


Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)
Newens, Stanley (Harlow)
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Cryer, G. R.
O'Halloran, Michael



Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Prescott, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Latham, Arthur (Cityof W'minster P'ton)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Mr. Kevin McNamara and


Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis
Mrs. Maureen Colquhoun

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 (Continuance) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.

Mr. Stan Thorne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The resolution on the business of the House earlier today determined that the House would sit for three hours on the order or until one o'clock, "whichever is the later". Who has the authority to change the decision of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Only the House itself. When the Question was put there was no hon. Member on his feet, and therefore I had to put the Question.

NORTHERN IRELAND BILL

Ordered,
That in respect of the Northern Ireland Bill, notices of Amendments, new clauses or new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a Second time.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

PETITIONS

Cohabitation Rule

Mr. Bruce George: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present the humble petition of the National Association of Widows, Gingerbread, the Child Poverty Action Group and others.

The petition sheweth

That grave hardship and injustice is caused to widows and other unsupported mothers and their children by the wrongful application of the cohabitation rule.

Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House amend the operation of the cohabitation rule to provide that
1. The social security legislation clearly define the term "cohabitation" and that this definition be clearly entered in all relevant pension and supplementary benefit order books.
2. No pension or supplementary allowance be withdrawn until such time as an independent tribunal has considered the case,
3. Legally aided representation be provided for all women alleged to be cohabiting who appear before such tribunals.
4. A second tier of appeal be introduced into the supplementary benefits appeal structure for consideration of such cases.


5. The chairmen of all supplementary benefits appeal tribunals hearing such cases be legally qualified.

The petition concludes in the customary way, with the words

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Rates (Melton)

Mr. Michael Latham: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a petition signed by about 12,000 ratepayers and electors in the Melton parliamentary constituency.

The petition sheweth
That the increase in local rates in the area of the two local authorities within the Melton Parliamentary Constituency for the year 1974–75 is onerous in extent and is causing hardship and financial difficulty to ratepayers therein, and that the hardship has been increased by the decision of Parliament to redistribute the Rate Support Grant domestic relief subsidy, to the great disadvantage of your petitioners.

The prayer of the petition reads as follows:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that an immediate inquiry be set up to advise the House of Commons on sources of Local Government Finance alternative to the present rating system; and that, as an immediate measure of relief, a Bill be introduced into the House of Commons to transfer the whole cost of teachers' salaries to the Exchequer.

The petition ends in the customary way, with the words

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. James A. Dunn.]

TOURISM

12.36 a.m.

Sir George Young: In a perceptive book on tourism which I published last year and which is still, unfortunately, available at most reputable bookshops, I argued the case for a national policy for tourism in this country. The Minister has, I am sure, read

and re-read that significant contribution. I am in distinguished company in pressing the Government for a policy for tourism. The Minister's predecessor said:
If any public money is to be spent on furthering tourism, it is right that the Government should set out the objectives which that expenditure is designed to secure.
That is a sentiment to which no reasonable person could object.
In a report published by the National Economic Development Office, entitled, "Hotel Prospects to 1980" it was stated that
The existence of an explicit national tourism policy could do much to help and guide the actions of those concerned at national, regional and local levels with the development of tourism.
In last year's annual report the English Tourist Board repeated the same plea. It said:
We are convinced that this country needs national guidelines for tourism—a broad strategy endorsed by the Government to which the Government will be committed. Tourism is too big, too important and affects the interests of too many people to be allowed to develop without positive guidance.
Recently we had a publication entitled, somewhat misleadingly, "Tourism Policy in Britain", in which it was stated that
Because of the rate of increase in tourism over recent years and the increases expected over the next few years, tourism pressures are reaching a critical stage and some very substantial decisions are required.
Many people are beginning to press the Government for some policy guidelines for this vast industry, and it is a matter of regret that the Minister's Department has so far felt unable to respond to this pressure. We have no policy for tourism. We have no broad objectives which the various components within the tourist industry can follow. It has been said of the Minister's Department, as far as its responsibility for tourism is concerned, that it apparently regards this part of its task as so very delicate that year after year it has shaken it off altogether. That was said by Mr. Ogilvie in 1933. I am sure that he will be delighted to hear me repeat it over 40 years later.
If we look at measures concerned with the development of tourism we find that there is no useful guidance for the various statutory bodies and the various components of the tourist industry. As a result of the absence of a tourist policy


and the absence of any framework within which to make sensible decisions, we have lurched from one short-term expedient to another, without the slightest idea where we are going. We relieve one bottleneck in the system only to create another one somewhere else.
I cite as evidence the handling of the hotel development incentives and the construction of London's third airport. On hotel development incentives, £60 million of public money went into development in the central area of London. Most of those hotels would have been built, anyway. Some of them were not needed, as we now have an embarrassing surplus of hotel capacity. Because the Government had not identified the rôle which they wanted the hotel industry to play within an overall policy for tourism they were unable to establish sensible criteria for disbursement of that money or to direct the funds involved to where they were most needed. The massive increase in hotel capacity in London was in no way related to the limited capacity of London's principal tourist attractions. If the Minister is in doubt about that, perhaps he will accompany me in about nine hours' time to Westminster Abbey, where he will see ample evidence of that statement. The hotel development incentive scheme operates in a policy vacuum.
I level the same criticism at the way in which we dealt with the siting of London's third airport. The fact that visitors, once they had landed, might need some accommodation, formed no part of the commission's consideration. As a result, the forecasts on which it worked—about 40 million tourists in 2006, as against about 8 million last year—bore no relation to London's capacity to absorb that number once they had landed. If we think about it we see that the land requirement for hotels to accommodate that number of tourists is beyond the capacity of London, given its dire housing problem.
Nor were more important strategic questions considered, such as whether it was right to divert a higher and higher proportion of London's labour force towards the labour-intensive service industries, with low productivity potential. The consideration of London's third airport took place in a policy vacuum. The implications of the construction of that

airport were never followed through. The decision-making machinery was defective, and the responsibility lies mainly with the former DTI.
If we are to make coherent and consistent decisions about the tourist industry in this country, and use public money sensibly, we have to have some idea of the volume and pattern of the tourist movement that the Government envisage. We need a tourist policy against which to judge the various issues that are thrown up. I have mentioned only two.
However, it is not enough for the Minister to concede the case for a national tourism policy; he has to have the machinery for formulating the right one. I hope that he will concede that this evening. If he asked for a national tourism policy at the moment I suspect that he would get two, because responsibility for tourism has been split—illadvisedly—with one set of people, the British Tourist Authority, responsible for marketing and promotion overseas and another—consisting of the tourist boards—responsible for the provision and development of various facilities at home.
The British Tourist Authority is basically a marketing organisation. Of the £5·7 million that it spent last year, £4·4 million was spent promoting Britain overseas. Its policy is essentially demand-oriented; it wants to bring as many people here as it can. To quote from a recent annual report:
Never before has there been a clearer need than now to promote this country hugely overseas and encourage the world to come to Britain.
Its policy would involve a continued increase in visitors, more airports, the diversion of more labour towards the labour-intensive industries and, in the long term, more hotels in London and other tourist destinations, with scant consideration for the needs of the natives.
On the other hand, from the English, Welsh and Scottish boards we would get a different policy. These boards have a strong regional presence, particularly in those areas where the tourist pressures are most acute. From them we would get a supply-oriented approach, related to the capacity of the tourist areas to absorb tourists. It is this approach that we see beginning in an enlightened document called "Tourism in London", in which


the tourist boards have collaborated. The division of responsibility between the marketing people and the development people—which I believe to be a mistake, anyway—will lead to a delay in the formulation of a unified national tourist policy, because the two organisations start from different premises. My view is that we should start with the supply-oriented approach and derive the marketing policy from it.
We must redefine—I put it no stronger—the rôles of the BTA and the tourist boards. I believe that they should be part of an integrated structure, with marketing and development clearly related, rather than autonomous bodies with overlapping and conflicting responsibilities, which can only lead to confusion and ill feeling.
The Minister having been kept from his bed until this late hour, he may not be overjoyed to hear me say that I believe he is the wrong Minister to respond to this Adjournment debate. On the other hand, he may be delighted to know that the problems which I have described should fall on other shoulders. I think it is clear from what I have said that the key issues in tourism are planning, rather than trading ones. Of course, tourism generates foreign currency, but for this to be the prime motivating factor behind the formulation of a policy would be wrong, and one has only to look at what has happened to the coasts of Spain to see why it would be wrong.
I therefore believe that the right Department to tackle this problem is the Department of the Environment and not the Department of Trade, because the need is for an approach based on our capacity to absorb tourists and not on our ability to persuade them to come here. The Department of Trade is principally interested in foreign exchange, and therefore has a somewhat narrow approach to its responsibilities in tourism.
I am encouraged by the thought of what may happen if we switch tourism to the Department of the Environment by looking at what happened to the former Ministry of Transport when it was absorbed within the new Department of the Environment. Previously, the Ministry of Transport was responsible for

building roads. Predictions of traffic flows were carried out, lines were drawn on maps, and roads duly appeared, but then the public started protesting. The Chiswick Flyover caused a lot of resentment among those living near it. There were protests about Westway, and a greater protest about ringways for London. People started asking whether the fact that roads were needed was the sole criterion for building them, and whether broader planning considerations should not be a factor.
The integration of the Ministry of Transport within the Department of the Environment had a beneficial effect, because engineers had to justify their proposals to their environmental colleagues, and often they had to put a few kinks in the straight lines, or rub them out. Few people would dispute that the approach to highway planning is much better now than it used to be because it is integrated with overall planning. I seek the same results by placing responsibility for tourism with the Department of the Environment, and I have sufficient confidence in that Department to believe that I should not be disappointed.
A national tourist policy would start by the Department of the Environment requiring all the local authorities to identify the rôle of tourism in their areas. A summation of these local plans would give the Department an idea of the country's capacity to absorb both domestic and overseas tourists. This would then be the input to the market policy, which would reverse the present process. It would also be an input to a policy related to hotels, airports and a general tourist infrastructure. It would reverse the process whereby marketing policy is the tail that wags the dog. The BTA tells us how many tourists it hopes to bring here, and the destinations respond by making the facilities available, often at some cost to the environment. I seek to reverse this process.
Other countries to which we often refer as underdeveloped are light-years ahead of us in managing their tourist industries both coherently and sensibly. They have identified the rôle which they wish to see their tourist industry play, and they have related it to other national objectives. They have been able to harness the energies and wealth which a growing


tourist industry generates to secure desirable objectives, instead of allowing those energies to destroy the destinations and the wealth to slip out of the country. It is this enlightened approach which I ask the Minister to adopt tonight.

12.49 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Eric Deakins): I must first say how grateful I am to the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) for having raised the question of tourism tonight. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the way that he presented his case. Outside this House he is already recognised as an authority on tourism, notably through his book in the Penguin series "Tourism—Blessing or Blight?" which I read with great interest almost immediately on taking up my post as Minister.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not take it amiss if I say that he has good reason for wanting to make his mark in the House before the next election, I think we can all agree that he puts his case with distinction, and I hope that, regardless of the outcome of the next election, it will not be too long before the House has an opportunity to hear from him again.
The title of his book is a provocative one, as I think it was intended to be. There is a tendency in certain quarters to think that tourism is an unqualified blessing, and I share the hon. Member's view that some of the assumptions underlying this view need to be carefully examined. But, if some of the blessings have been overstated, we must not immediately swing to the other extreme by arguing that tourism is an unqualified blight. I know that in his speech the hon. Member dissociated himself from both extremes, but I put it to him that in drawing attention to some of the disadvantages of tourism, particularly foreign tourism, he has in fact rather overstated his case.
We must first of all remember that more people leave these shores as tourists than arrive here; in 1973 there were 11·3 million trips abroad by United Kingdom residents and there were 7·6 million overseas visits to this country. So, if we play the numbers game, the growth of international tourism might be considered positively advantageous from the hon. Member's point of view. If we take

holiday visitors alone the balance could be said, on this argument, to be even more in our favour. The problem is that those who go abroad are drawn from all parts of the country, whereas those who arrive here from abroad for their holidays tend to congregate in London and the south of England generally. I know this to my cost, because I live right in the middle of it, in Piccadilly Circus.
What can we do about it? The hon. Member speaks almost—and this emerges from his book—as if he wanted to give a licence to every visitor telling him when he should come, where he should go, and how long he should stay. The fact is that in a free society we shall not be able to prevent people from coming here for their holidays if they wish to. We can make them pay for the privilege by taxing them or we can make them so unwelcome and so uncomfortable that they stay away, but experience suggests that a tourist tax would have to be very high indeed to slow down the rate of growth significantly, and I believe, on the second point, that there is a limit to which we should go in restricting the supply of facilities which tourists demand.
The House will know that thousands of our own people flock to the resorts during the holiday season and are quite content to sleep in their cars if they fail to find a bed for the night. Overseas visitors could well do the same, adding to the blight of which the hon. Member rightly complains. We must also remember that we are tourists when we go on holiday and that if we resent the increase in the number of foreign tourists here, they may also resent our presence there, when, unthinkingly, we enjoy the delights of, for example, Paris or Rome.
The problem—as the hon. Member points out in his book—is essentially one of distribution. The number of home tourists far exceeds the number of overseas tourists, but the great bulk of home tourists continue to patronise the traditional tourist areas, and over the past century adequate facilities have been developed to cope with their needs. Blackpool would not be Blackpool if it were not crowded with visitors, and I suspect that very few of its inhabitants complain about tourist congestion. Indeed, their fear is that one day the visitors will go away.
The problem raised by the growth of overseas tourism is that the visitors are mainly drawn from the prosperous sections of their respective communities and do not generally come to spend a week in a boarding house by the sea; they come to see our historic buildings and ceremonial pageantry. Our problem is to persuade them to go further afield, and this is, in part, a problem of persuading the tour operators and others that an enjoyable holiday can be had in other parts of the country and, in part, a problem of persuading independent holidaymakers, who outnumber the others by nearly three to one, to venture forth from London by public or by private transport to discover what we have to offer.
It has been said that there is a limit to the extent to which the British Tourist Authority can persuade visitors to move outside London and the South-East. This is obviously true, but the question is whether the limit has been reached. I am not convinced that it has. Most people who come here will want to visit London at some time during their stay, but London promotes itself, and in promoting Britain overseas we should perhaps put even more emphasis than we do on the attractions of the regions, particularly the development areas and those areas which depend on tourism for their prosperity.
The fact that tourism is a very labour-intensive industry is in this respect a positive advantage. Employment in manufacturing industry may be preferable in areas where manufacturing industry is prepared to go, but where it is not there is everything to be said for introducing or strengthening the tourist industry as a means either of providing new employment or of avoiding depopulation. I have in mind particularly upland areas, where it is hard to wrest a living from the soil and where the farmer and his family can use a spare room or build additional rooms to accommodate tourists.
It has been suggested—and this emerged from the hon. Member's book—that the balance of payments advantage of tourism is illusory, or, at least, overstated. It is true that in the extreme case a foreign tourist may be brought here by a foreign tour operator, in a foreign aircraft, to stay in a foreign-owned hotel, to be waited on by foreign waiters, but

that is an extreme case. There can be no doubt at all that overseas visitors contribute substantially to the balance of payments and, in particular, earn a surplus over expenditure by British residents travelling overseas. The larger the share of the trade taken by British operators the better, and I hope in this connection that some of those who find that their trade in taking Britons abroad is dwindling will turn their attention to bringing overseas visitors here. The situation may be different in some other countries, but I have no hesitation in saying that the Government welcome the contribution which the tourist industry is making to our balance of payments at this present particularly difficult time.
The hon. Member has drawn attention—again in his book—to the demands which tourism makes on land. I would not for one moment pretend that the huge increase in the number of hotels in London in recent years has not reduced the supply of land for housing and other purposes, but the increase has resulted in a substantial surplus of capacity in London and I do not think that we need worry too much about further large-scale encroachment by hotels on building land in London in the foreseeable future.
The hon. Member referred to the hotel development incentive scheme. There has been renewed pressure for a new hotel development incentive s theme, particularly in the development areas. Such proposals need to be treated with great care. There is good reason to believe that most of the hotels built in recent years would have been built without Government assistance and, while there may be a case for Government assistance to hotel building in some locations, particularly when the season is short and where manufacturing would not be a realistic alternative, the fact that there is a shortage of accommodation would not in itself be a justification for a Government grant.
Indeed, I would not expect new hotels to be built unless there ha d been a shortage over a period, and o encourage a new hotel to be built as soon as a shortage appeared would be no use Government money to take away business from existing suppliers. The English Tourist Board has shown in a recent survey that hotels are being built in most areas. The


very exceptional cases to which I have referred can be dealt with under Section 4 of the Act.
So much for the pillars on which the hon. Member has rested his case. He will see that I have not dismissed his arguments. What he has said is important, and he deserves to be congratulated for being among the first to voice his doubts about tourism in a systematic form, but his doubts are doubts and not certainties. Moreover, he gives Government—and here I include the previous administration, as well as this one—less credit for intelligence than they deserve.
It is not, of course, true to say that we have not got a national tourist policy. Our policy, like that of the previous administration, is to encourage the development of tourism to and within Great Britain. The hon. Member may not agree with the policy and, indeed, may wish to reverse the tourist tide. What is really at issue is the question of tourism strategy and the question of Exchequer support.
On this we have been feeling our way forward in the light of the experience gained in the first four years of the operation of the BTA and the tourist boards under the Development of Tourism Act 1969. More and more emphasis has been and is being put on the return to the community as a whole from Government expenditure on tourism rather than on the return to the trade interests concerned, whose influence is not negligible, as the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) recently discovered in introducing the Local Revenue Bill. We may not have to come to such firm conclusions that we now feel able to proclaim that we have a new tourist policy which is in some way sharply different from that of our predecessors. Indeed, we do not believe that in a constantly changing situation there is a simple answer to the problems which tourism produces, but, if Governments have shunned the rôle of sage and prophet, the hon. Member may at least take comfort from the fact that we continue to resist the claims of those who believe that indiscriminate and open-ended expenditure by Governments on financial assistance to every aspect of tourism is necessarily in the public interest.

The idea of cost-benefit has long ceased to be a monopoly of the universities! The hon. Member referred to Maplin and expressed some doubts on the split between marketing and organisation in the tourist industry. He asked whether, because of its responsibilities for civil aviation, the Department of Trade is the right body to sponsor the tourist industry and oversee the work of the tourist boards. The question of who looks after tourism is, of course, for the Prime Minister, but the hon. Gentleman cannot in the same breath complain about lack of coordination in Government and about one Department looking after two or more aspects of the same problem.
I cannot say how our predecessors arrived at their decision on Maplin. What I can say is that this Government have taken the tourist potential fully into account in examining the need for a third London airport. In saying this I do not deny that there are other considerations and I have no doubt that these will be given due weight as our policy evolves. Decisions may have been made in a vacuum by the last administration. I hope and, indeed, believe that we will do considerably better.
In conclusion, I will say again what I said at the beginning of the debate—that I am grateful to the hon. Member for having raised this subject tonight. Governments almost everywhere have been reexamining their assumptions about tourism, if only because of the implications for tourism of the energy crisis, but I can assure him that this Government will certainly not ignore the kind of considerations to which he has referred, even if we do not end up by coming to precisely the same conclusions. The tourist industry should not be regarded by government either as a blessing or a blight, but as one of the number of industries which play an important rôle in our economy but which need to be constrained only where there is clear evidence that the economic and social advantages to the community as a whole are more than offset by the disadvantages.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past One o'clock.